US Judge orders Microsoft to hand over data stored in Ireland

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It is controversial. That is the basis for the appeal.

Last time I checked, no, actually, it wasn't. Microsoft seems to agree that the order itself is not eligible for appeal, though they haven't said so out loud. They're forcing the judge to find them in contempt, because the contempt finding is appealable.

http://www.zdnet.com/judge-revives-m...nt-7000033144/

Whether or not the order itself can be appealed is a hot button subject, but the law itself has been in effect for a number of years, and is not particularly controversial (legally speaking - politically, it is very controversial, but that's not a legal issue).

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

Last time I checked, no, actually, it wasn't. Microsoft seems to agree that the order itself is not eligible for appeal, though they haven't said so out loud. They're forcing the judge to find them in contempt, because the contempt finding is appealable.

http://www.zdnet.com/judge-revives-m...nt-7000033144/

Whether or not the order itself can be appealed is a hot button subject, but the law itself has been in effect for a number of years, and is not particularly controversial (legally speaking - politically, it is very controversial, but that's not a legal issue).

The initial judge's position was (source):

Microsoft argued that U.S. courts are not authorized to issue warrants for extraterritorial search and seizure.

After conceding that Microsoft’s argument was not inconsistent with the statute’s language, Magistrate Judge Francis nonetheless rejected its position.

In the court’s view, the enactment of the SCA was due, at least in part, to a recognition that Fourth Amendment protections that apply in the physical world might not apply to information communicated through the Internet. The opinion distinguished the Government’s request from a “traditional” search warrant, finding that digital content governed by the SCA merits less protection. The decision further characterized a warrant seeking email information as a “hybrid” because, although it is obtained from a neutral magistrate judge like a search warrant, it is executed like a subpoena through service on the ISP and does not involve government agents visiting the ISP’s premises.

And according to the article that you linked to both sides want the appeal, there is just a difference of opinion regarding the stage in which this appeal should take place:

According to Preska's order, both Microsoft and the federal government expressed a desire to the District Court that the case be heard on appeal to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as soon as possible.

But the government and Microsoft disagree on the next step to the appeal.

The government says that the order is not appealable at this stage, and Preska agrees. The Friday order says that the contempt order would be subject to appellate review. This disagreement over the path to appeal is, says the order, "the subject of hot dispute."

The initial judge twisted the law to issue a “hybrid”. Both sides of the debate want this discussed further. It is controversial.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

It is controversial.

This order is controversial. The law under which it was issued isn't. Do you see the difference?

[Froide]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The alternative would be to say that a company or individual could evade the law simply by storing its data on a server in a different country. This seems a reasonable ruling to me.

This.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by taustin

This order is controversial. The law under which it was issued isn't. Do you see the difference?

You said:

Originally Posted by taustin

This order is not even controversial under US law.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The alternative would be to say that a company or individual could evade the law simply by storing its data on a server in a different country. This seems a reasonable ruling to me.

Seems to work for money and taxes.