Juris Diction

There is no privacy on the Internet.
If you don't want to see it in print, don't put it into the computer.

Ask nicely, and you'll probably receive. Tell me I gotta, just on your say-so, and you'll wait a long time.

Juris Diction -- The law speaks. But how loud, and how far?

   It has long been recognized that sovereignty is crucial to maintaining jurisdictional integrity, whether across state lines or international borders. But as the Internet increasingly blurs these boundaries, the law has yet to catch up with technology, thus creating a metadata muddle when authorities in one nation want to search computer files stored in another jurisdiction -- legally, of course.
   The latest wrinkle  in this dispute involves prosecutors' access to potentially incriminating email, when the suspect is in one country and the messages are stored on computers in another.
   Earlier this summer, Yahoo! moved its computer servers out of Britain and went to Ireland, where privacy laws are stricter. British prosecutors protested that "national security" gave them the right of full access to international emails, so no warrant was needed. For a long time, Internet providers acquiesced to such requests for metadata, but then an outcry over privacy called for them to stop. So Yahoo! shifted its storage units to Ireland.
   Comes now a U.S. effort to peruse Microsoft servers, stored in Ireland, in search of evidence in a drug-related case. They dutifully obtained a warrant from a federal judge ordering Microsoft to produce the data.
   Nay, nay, quoth the legal beagles at Microsoft. That's personal information, stored in another country, so U.S. prosecutors and judges have no jurisdiction over files stored elsewhere, and investigators have no authority to demand such information.
   Yes, we do, say the feds, because Microsoft is an American company.
   No, you don't, say the corporate lawyers, because the files are elsewhere, and the warrant is not valid.
   Meanwhile, a top lawman in Ireland noted that there is a procedure to follow for such things. All the U.S. has to do is get a judge in Ireland to sign off on the search warrant, and the Irish will comply.
   That's "too cumbersome," replied the U.S. law hounds.
   According to former Irish Attorney General Michael McDowell, Irish law prohibits data held in Ireland from being handed over to foreign law enforcement agencies unless it is signed off by an Irish Judge in Ireland. There is a '"Mutual Legal Assistance" treaty between the U.S. and the European Union, including Ireland, which facilitates such requests. The U.S. Department of Justice takes the position that U.S.-based companies must comply with valid warrants issued in the U.S.

   European data protection measures are much more restrictive than those in the U.S, which sometimes seem to work with no restrictions. While the "law of the land" should be enforced, the question arises as to which land. Even the U.S. Supreme Court cannot assume a decision will be honored in another land.
   In short, Irish authorities simply don't have to obey a court order that did not come through their legal system. Moreover, the attitude of U.S. prosecutors smacks of arrogance, as in "We're bigger, so do as we tell you."
   Perhaps the CIA or the NSA could hack into the Microsoft computer systems and retrieve the stuff the prosecutors want, but if (when) they get caught, it would be at least embarrassing, and worse, unacceptable in a court proceeding because it was snatched illegally.

   Now here's another potential consequence: U.S. companies may resort to "inversion," moving their corporate headquarters to another country. It's being done now, to avoid higher U.S. tax rates, and more firms -- especially tech firms -- could do it to take advantage of stricter privacy laws elsewhere.