Resultados 1 a 3 de 3
  1. #1
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    [EN] The Supreme Court will decide if the US can access anyone's data on Earth

    The highest court has agreed to hear 'US v. Microsoft,' a landmark internet privacy case.

    Louise Matsakis
    Oct 16 2017

    The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear a major digital privacy case, which will determine whether law enforcement officials can demand user data stored by technology companies in other countries.

    In 2013, federal investigators obtained a warrant for emails and identifying information tied to a Microsoft Outlook account they believed was being used to organize drug trafficking. The problem was that the emails were stored overseas in Ireland, where the anonymous user of the account registered as a resident.

    Microsoft turned over information stored in the US, but refused to retrieve data stored on the Irish servers. The case was then escalated to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which sided with Microsoft, ruling that the emails were outside the reach of a search warrant because they were being held overseas.

    Now, US v Microsoft is going to the Supreme Court.

    If the court sides with Department of Justice lawyers in this new case, the government will have unfettered access to the data tech companies store all over the world, provided it has a warrant. During the appeals court case, Microsoft's lawyers argued that the US is essentially trying to say that its laws extend across borders.

    "If that is the rule, that is a rule for global chaos," said Joshua Rosenkranz, a partner with the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, who was representing Microsoft. "Because other countries can do that to us … we would go crazy if China did that to us."

    The Trump administration argues the federal appeals ruling has become a burdensome obstacle in criminal investigations. The Justice Department says tech companies like Google and Yahoo have refused to comply with search warrants that concern data stored outside the country.

    "Under this opinion, hundreds if not thousands of investigations of crimes—ranging from terrorism, to child pornography, to fraud—are being or will be hampered by the government's inability to obtain electronic evidence," DOJ official Jeffrey Wall argued in court documents.

    The appeals court sided with Microsoft citing the 1986 Stored Communications Act, which protects the privacy of electronic communications. It provides room for legal probes, but it doesn't extend to data that's held overseas, the court ruled.

    Microsoft doesn't want the Supreme Court to hear the case. Instead, it argues, Congress should just update the Stored Communications act, which is now over 30 years old, to reflect our digital world.

    "The current laws were written for the era of the floppy disk, not the world of the cloud. We believe that rather than arguing over an old law in court, it is time for Congress to act by passing new legislation, such as the International Communications Privacy Act (ICPA) of 2017," Brad Smith, Microsoft president and chief legal officer, said in a blog post.

    "If the US government wins this case, we expect that other countries will argue that their legal process reaches content that providers store in the US, including countries that have lousy surveillance laws, or that don't follow the laws they do have," Greg Nojeim, a lawyer at the digital rights advocacy group Center for Democracy and Technology, said in a statement made during the appeals court deliberation. "Welcome to Wild West."

    This isn't the only case concerning technology and privacy that the justices will soon rule on. The court is already scheduled to hear a case concerning whether police can gain access without a warrant to cellphone location data stored by wireless carriers.

  2. #2
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010
    Citação Postado originalmente por 5ms Ver Post
    The Justice Department says tech companies like Google and Yahoo have refused to comply with search warrants that concern data stored outside the country.
    Fake news.

    O gigante dos fracassos tentou copiar a estratégia de defesa da Microsoft e sofreu uma derrota humilhante no tribunal, com direito a deboches do juiz, cessando a contestação de ordens judiciais desde então. Fato amplamente detalhado e noticiado. Citar o herói da rendição na matéria ajuda o site?

    [EN] Google stops challenging US warrants for data on overseas servers

    [EN] Google ordered by US judge to hand over emails stored abroad
    Última edição por 5ms; 21-10-2017 às 21:53.

  3. #3
    WHT-BR Top Member
    Data de Ingresso
    Dec 2010

    Justice Department moves to end routine gag orders on tech firms

    Prosecutors can’t secretly look at your data anymore.

    Ellen Nakashima
    October 24

    The Justice Department has issued new guidelines aimed at providing more transparency around prosecutors’ secret demands for customer data stored on tech firms’ servers.

    The binding guidance, approved last week by Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, ends the routine imposition of gag orders barring companies from telling customers that their email or other records have been turned over in response to legal demands.

    It also bans — in most cases — indefinite gag orders that forbid a company from ever telling users that their data have been searched.

    The move comes a year and a half after Microsoft sued the department, asking a federal judge in Seattle to strike down portions of a major privacy law that govern the secrecy orders. The tech giant argued that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act violated customers’ Fourth Amendment right that a search be reasonable because it did not require the government to notify them when their records were obtained. The company also argued that the law’s gag-order provision violated the company’s First Amendment right to talk to its customers.

    The new guidance requires prosecutors to tailor their applications for secrecy orders to ensure that they are necessary, and explain why. For instance, a prosecutor might fear that the target will destroy data if he or she learns of the probe. Or the target might try to flee. The assessment must be “individualized and meaningful.”

    And now there is a time limit: “Barring exceptional circumstances,” a gag order may be sought for “one year or less.”

    The change is a recognition that privacy laws passed in the 1980s have not kept up with the advent of cloud computing in which people, at the press of a button, create and store data in servers that they do not control.

    “This update further ensures that the department can protect the rights of citizens we serve, while allowing companies to maintain relationships with their customers by notifying those suspected of crimes, or believed to have information relevant to a crime, in a timely manner that information was obtained relating to their user accounts,” Department of Justice spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam said Monday in a statement.

    “This is an important step for both privacy and free expression,” Microsoft President and Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith said Monday in a blog post. “It is an unequivocal win for our customers, and we’re pleased the DOJ has taken these steps to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.”

    As a result, Microsoft announced it plans to drop its lawsuit. But it wants Congress to pass legislation to put a 90-day limit on nondisclosure orders unless the government asks for them to be renewed.

    When Microsoft filed its case in April 2016, it noted that in the prior 18 months, it had received 5,600 federal demands for data, and almost 2,600 were accompanied by obligations of secrecy. And more than two-thirds of those — about 1,750 orders — had no fixed end date.

    “In short, we were prevented from ever telling a large number of customers that the government had sought to access their data,” Smith said.

    The policy does not apply to orders under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or to “national security letters,” a type of administrative subpoena used in national security cases.

    Chris Calabrese, vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a privacy organization, applauded the move. But, he said, “it is no substitute for statutory reform.”

    The move matters for Americans whose data is secretly obtained in criminal probes that never lead to a prosecution, but who never find out because of indefinite gag orders. This has become much more of a problem as people store their emails and other sensitive data in the cloud. “They’re not expecting that it’s an all-you-can-eat buffet for the government,” said John McKay, a former U.S. attorney in Seattle who is now a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine.

Permissões de Postagem

  • Você não pode iniciar novos tópicos
  • Você não pode enviar respostas
  • Você não pode enviar anexos
  • Você não pode editar suas mensagens