View Single Post
Old 09-03-2014, 05:34 PM   #27
taustin
Wizard
taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.taustin ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,358
Karma: 5766642
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
Quote:
Originally Posted by tubemonkey View Post
I have a major issue with this. To me, location of the data is the determining factor, not accessibility. Ruling against Microsoft could open a Pandora's Box we wouldn't want opened.
Indeed. But ruling for Microsoft could do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tubemonkey View Post
If we take physical presence out of the equation, it won't be long before we see any company doing business within another country subject to laws that would require it to turn over data no matter where it's stored.
As opposed to corporations being explicitly allowed to ignore the laws of countries they are doing business in, by simply moving their data around. Perhaps Microsoft should buy Sealand. Then, to subpoena anything at all, for any reason, from Microsoft, you would have to apply for a court order from . . . Micorsoft, a law unto themselves.

And, again, the legal reasoning here is that the order isn't against the data in another country, it's against an employee <b>who clearly is subject to the authority of the court</b> issuing the order.

There's serious hazards either way, and no simple solutions.
taustin is offline   Reply With Quote