Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, and Cisco have filed an amicus brief supporting Google in an ongoing case dealing with security and privacy, topics that Apple has been known to advocate in the past (via Business Insider). Most recently, Google's case has led to a court in Pennsylvania requesting the company to comply to an FBI warrant asking for emails residing on foreign servers.

Although it's unclear what resides within the emails in question, in a report last month (via The Register) it was said that a Pennsylvania district court submitted two domestic search warrants -- issued under the Stored Communications Act -- targeted at the suspects in the case and their emails stored overseas. Google was given two orders previously, which it refused to comply with, before the judge in the case ruled that as an American corporation it must abide by the rulings of an American court, no matter where the data in question is being held.

apple store logo 1
The coalition of companies supporting Google now argue that the scope of the SCA doesn't reach into foreign territories, and could lead to Google being forced to violate foreign data privacy laws. The amicus brief cites a case where Microsoft was asked to hand over emails stored on cloud servers in Ireland.

Microsoft eventually won that case when it argued that the SCA does not cover data stored on servers in foreign countries and that the Act itself is "a statute enacted when the internet was still in its infancy" (it dates back to 1986) and subsequently should not be the touchstone of modern, technology-driven privacy cases.

The U.S. Government frequently serves some Amici with warrants issued under the Stored Communications Act (SCA). When the data sought is stored in a U.S. data center, Amici regularly comply with such warrants. The Government, however, also has attempted to use such warrants to force some Amici, without consent of the customer or the foreign country, to seize private emails stored in a foreign country and to turn them over to the Government. But the SCA does not authorize warrants that reach into other countries, and forcing those Amici to execute such searches on the Government’s behalf would place those Amici in the position of being compelled to risk violating foreign data privacy laws

The brief also argues that if Google is forced to hand over the emails, a reverse situation could occur that opens the floodgates for foreign countries to request emails from U.S. citizens that are stored on U.S. servers. At the most extreme, the brief argues that foreign nations could see the data extraction as "an affront to their sovereignty in much the same way that physically conducting law enforcement activity on foreign soil would violate their sovereignty and territorial integrity."

Other than the filing of the amicus brief, Google's case hasn't moved forward in any way since February. When the Pennsylvanian court filed the search warrant forcing Google to hand over the emails, a spokesperson for the company said that Google plans to continue to appeal and "we will continue to push back on over-broad warrants."

Note: Due to the political nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.

Top Rated Comments

69Mustang Avatar
57 months ago
I'm going to be jumped on for saying this, I know. But...

If Americans are using the products of an American company to commit criminal activity and intangible "evidence" just happens to be stored outside the country but accessible remotely...

There is no way that if an impartial judge finds there is probable cause that it would be any violation of a person's rights, and or in my opinion, foreign sovereignty, to access that data.

1. If Google does win, companies will start choosing countries in a way they choose countries with beneficial tax law but for foreign access to data laws.

2. This certainly does NOT apply to random government super surveillance however.
No need for anyone to jump on you. It's a simple discussion. Some will agree with your position, others will not. I fall into the latter category.

1. Central storage of customer data is no longer an option in global business. More and more countries require their citizen's data to be stored within their borders. There's really no advantage from a company standpoint, so why would they start choosing countries? Their options will be do business our way or do business elsewhere.

2. You can't throw that caveat into the equation as a defense. History has proven time and time again that government overreach is a concrete consequence of relinquishing freedoms. If Google loses to the US, a very good case can be made that other countries will start requesting the same types of access on info stored in the US. There's no guarantee their motives will be pure. Hell, there's no guarantee the US' motives will be pure. Again, history suggests it won't be.

Google needs to win this case, just like Microsoft did. If they lose, the next request could be info from Apple's servers, or Facebook's, or... you see where this is going. To look at this one case as if it's an isolated entity unto itself is shortsighted.

edit: [USER=1029434]@Fall Under Cerulean Kites[/USER] has the right solution: Get the warrant in the proper jurisdiction.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Fall Under Cerulean Kites Avatar
57 months ago
Would a search warrant be valid if issued by a US court to Hilton, for the contents of your hotel room in Mumbai? I suspect not.

The simple solution is to get a warrant in the proper jurisdiction. And this is the game - LEOs want to make things as easy as possible, and have as far a reach as possible. It’s our job to fight this sort of overreach.
Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
69Mustang Avatar
57 months ago
Governmental overreach at it's finest. Google needs to win this.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
soupcan Avatar
57 months ago
Hey 'Murica, you're not the world's police. Stop acting like you can access everything everywhere.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
keysofanxiety Avatar
57 months ago
Shouldn't this article be PRSI? :confused:
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
69Mustang Avatar
57 months ago
A physical presence is a bit different than an electronic one. If the email passed though a US server it would be reasonable for a company to be required to turn over any copies on a US server since they are physically present in the US, regardless of any foreign data protection laws.
There's no argument here. Any info on a US server would already be in the hands of the government via a warranted request through the SCA.
The question becomes "Can a US corporation retrieve the requested emails and is it reasonable for a court to force them to so do?" It's clear they can be required to turn over financial records of subsidiaries so there i no blanket prohibition against getting data on foreign soil.
A company's records is not the same as customer records. They fall under different applicable laws. The arguments used for one cannot be applied to the other. As you said, no blankets... in prohibitions nor permissions.

The challenge is who has the right to control electronic data such as emails? With varying and conflicting laws around the globe I think this is a case where treaties need to be negotiated to clarify who has control over the data.
This issue has already been solved and procedures already exist for this type of issue. Go through the proper channels to secure a warrant. Sovereign territories have domain over it's citizens.

One complication in the Google case is the suspects reside in the US and so the argument is made they are subject to US law and foreign protections do not apply. In addition, if the messages were stored on a US server at any time I could see the argument that at that point any foreign data laws no longer applied since sender had given tacit approval to their export by sending them to a US based entity; or even more broadly had agreed simply by sending them to the US..
This particular issue isn't about the suspect at all. It has nothing to do with a suspect receiving US nor foreign protections. The suspect isn't even germane. As stated earlier, whatever was on a US server the government already has.
Bolded: Thankfully, the law doesn't work that way. Businesses have to follow the laws in the country in which they're operating. Being a US company doesn't exempt Google from laws in Brazil, Germany, India, Russia, China, etc. More importantly, US law does not supersede the laws worldwide.
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Top Stories

REC ASA CODE2016 20160601 205816 2745

Elon Musk Reportedly Demanded to Become Apple CEO as Part of Potential Tesla Acquisition [Update: Musk Denies]

Friday July 30, 2021 9:04 am PDT by
Tesla CEO Elon Musk reportedly once demanded that he be made Apple CEO in a brief discussion of a potential acquisition with Apple's current CEO, Tim Cook. The claim comes in a new book titled "Power Play: Tesla, Elon Musk and the Bet of the Century," as reviewed by The Los Angeles Times. According to the book, during a 2016 phone call between Musk and Cook that touched on the possibility of ...
General Apps Messages

Android iMessage Competitor Puts Pressure on Apple

Friday July 30, 2021 3:15 am PDT by
Google and the three major U.S. carriers, including Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, will all support a new communications protocol on Android smartphones starting in 2022, a move that puts pressure on Apple to adopt a new cross-platform messaging standard and may present a challenge to iMessage. Verizon recently announced that it is planning to adopt Messages by Google as its default messaging...
Apple watch series 5 new case material made of titanium 091019

Titanium Apple Watch Series 6 Models Currently Widely Unavailable

Sunday August 1, 2021 6:21 am PDT by
Models of the Apple Watch Series 6 with titanium cases part of the "Apple Watch Edition" collection is currently widely unavailable for pick-up in several of Apple's retail stores in the United States and is unavailable entirely for delivery in major markets. Noted by Bloomberg's Mark Gurman in the latest edition of his "Power On" newsletter, titanium models of the Apple Watch Series 6,...
ifixit iphone12 mini

Apple to Make Space for Larger Batteries in iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks By Adopting Slimmer Peripheral Chips

Monday August 2, 2021 2:12 am PDT by
For future iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks, Apple plans to use smaller internal components in an effort to increase the size of the device's battery, according to DigiTimes. Image Credit: iFixit Specifically, Apple plans to "significantly increase the adoption" of IPDs or integrated passive devices for the peripheral chips in its products. These news chips will be slimmer in size and allow for...
Flat 2021 MacBook Pro Mockup Feature

Unreleased Apple Macs and Apple Watches Listed in Eurasian Database Ahead of Fall Product Launches

Monday August 2, 2021 9:34 am PDT by
Apple is preparing for a slew of fall product launches according to new filings that showed up today in the Eurasian Economic Commission database. There are listings for new Mac and Apple Watch models, all of which have previously unknown model identifiers that indicate that they're upcoming devices. There are six new Apple Watch identifiers, including A2473, A2474, A2475, A2476, A2477, and...
a15 chip

iPhone 13 and Redesigned MacBook Pro Chip Production Hit With Gas Contamination

Friday July 30, 2021 5:44 am PDT by
The most important TSMC factory that manufactures Apple's chips destined for next-generation iPhone and Mac models has been hit by a gas contamination, according to Nikkei Asia. The factory, known as "Fab 18," is TSMC's most advanced chipmaking facility. TSMC is Apple's sole chip supplier, making all of the processors used in every Apple device with a custom silicon chip. Industry...
iPhone 13 Wi Fi 6E feature update

Wi-Fi 6E Explained: What It Could Mean for iPhone 13 and Beyond

Monday August 2, 2021 8:00 am PDT by
The iPhone 13 is widely expected to come with Wi-Fi 6E capabilities, and while it may seem rather nuanced to the average consumer, with only improved speeds and being "up to date" in the realm of Wi-Fi technology, it's actually a fairly significant improvement, laying the groundwork for much of what we know the future holds. To truly understand Wi-Fi 6E, MacRumors sat down for an exclusive...
youtube premium lite

YouTube Tests Cheaper 'Premium Lite' Subscription for Ad-Free Viewing

Monday August 2, 2021 3:22 am PDT by
YouTube is piloting a new cheaper subscription tier in Europe called "Premium Lite," which offers ad-free viewing minus YouTube Premium's other features. First spotted by a user on ResetEra and subsequently confirmed by Google, the "Lite" plan means users who aren't interested in offline downloads or background playback can still enjoy YouTube videos on web and mobile app without being...
iPhone 13 Always On Feature

iPhone 13 to Bring Over a Major Feature From the Apple Watch

Wednesday July 28, 2021 2:21 am PDT by
Apple's upcoming iPhone 13 lineup will feature an always-on display akin to the Apple Watch Series 5 and Series 6, according to recent reports. In his weekly Power On newsletter, Bloomberg journalist Mark Gurman, who often reveals accurate insights into Apple's plans, said that the iPhone 13 may feature an Apple Watch-inspired always-on mode. The Apple Watch Series 5 and Apple Watch...
COVID19 Digital Wallet Apple Wallet

Australian Government Now Offering COVID-19 Digital Vaccination Certificates for Apple Wallet

Monday August 2, 2021 12:04 am PDT by
The Australian government has introduced support for adding COVID-19 vaccination digital certificates to Apple Wallet via the Express Plus Medicare app on iOS. Image credit: Tap Down Under As spotted by Tap Down Under, users who have received two doses of either the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccine now have access to the digital certificate through their Medicare online account or via the Medica...