The US government can not force Microsoft to deliver information in servers hosted in other countries; is a historical precedent for the protection of privacy for online services
An appeals court in the United States found that national authorities can not force the computer giant Microsoft to deliver information in servers hosted in other countries. The decision sets a historic precedent for privacy protection for computer services in the cloud.
“It makes clear that the US government can not use court orders unilaterally to reach other countries and get emails that belong to other nationalities, “he told the BBC Brad Smith, president and chief legal officer of the company.
” it tells people who can, really, trust in technology, when you choose to move your data to the cloud, “he added.
digital Rights
the case went to court after Microsoft refused to grant access to the Department Justice to a server in Ireland, as part of an investigation into a drug-related record.
a court in Manhattan gave the green light to the Department of Justice in 2014. But the appeals court decision that undid . The Justice Department rejected the ruling and said it was evaluating the next step. If you resolve to appeal, the case would fall into the hands of the Supreme Court.
Several companies, including Amazon, Apple and Cisco, Microsoft backed in the case. Another organization that was on their side was the Open Rigths Group, an NGO in the UK that defends digital rights.
“The decision of the US court retains the right to individual privacy against intrusion State in personal freedom, “said legal director of the group, Myles Jackman.
” As a result, the security agencies of the United States must respect the right to digital privacy of European citizens and protection of personal data. “
” States should not go beyond its borders simply because they believe that doing so can intimidate companies, “he added.
Game open to all
Microsoft had warned that allow the restraining order was executed unleash an “open game”, in which other countries could try to implement similar orders to access servers in the United States.
echoing widespread concerns in the technology industry, the company argued that the laws were simply too outdated to be effective.
“the protection of privacy and the needs the authorities in charge of enforcing the law require new solutions that reflect the world that exists today, instead of technologies that existed three decades ago, when the laws are in force were approved, “the company said.
Among the agencies responsible for ensuring security, law and order is a major concern about the possibility that the network storage, with encryption, is offering a space in which criminals can act at home.
the limits of cooperation
judge Susan Carney, in charge of the case, ruled against the Department of Justice on the grounds that the Communications Act Stockpile (SAC, its acronym in English) of 1986 limited the scope of judicial orders applicable outside the United States.
the judge noted that these restrictions are vital to maintaining good relations with other countries. Furthermore, said there are mechanisms for cooperation between nations the course of investigations, although the authorities often complain that taking that route is more expensive and time consuming.
“Go to court to for an order under the SCA is usually faster than resorting to international channels of resolution, “said Daniel Stoller, senior legal editor of the firm Bloomberg Law Privacy & amp; Security News.
Stoller said the original sentence interpreted the SCA 2014 so favoring the view of the Department of Justice. But the appeal gave priority to international law.
Another judge involved in the trial, Gerard Lynch said the 1986 law needed updating urgently. “I agree with the result,” he wrote. “But I do not think in any way that the result should be taken as something that will become rational policy, much less celebrated as a milestone in the protection of privacy.”
No comments:
Post a Comment