US government says online storage isn't protected by the Fourth Amendment

[mr moose]

 

 

Statement 2) I kind of disagree. Asking an american company to follow american laws is well within its jurisdiction. No one is stealing anything (in this case at least). You still need that warrant/subpoena.  If they don't want to provide the requested information, regardless of its physical location, they would face sanctions an punishments under american law. No change than if you refuse to follow a subpoena or warrant within the US. You can make the decision to ignore it, but there will be consequences that you mus be prepared for. You have the choice to not allow the cops into your place when they have a search warrant, however there are consequences, in this case probably a broken down door and being arrested for contempt of court/impeding an investigation. 

 

But their not saying they shouldn't have to comply with warrants and subpenas, they are claiming the warrants are not legitimate in the first place because the target evidence is not on American soil. 

[Nineshadow]

Only a nub puts valuable documents in online storage anyway. Those with common sense keep sensitive data locally.

Pretty much every computer is linked to the internet.If not,it's linked to another and that one to another and it keeps going till one is connected to the internet.This makes everything accessible via the internet.

 

What they said is that the 4th amendment doesn't refer to digital data,something which is totally crazy,because digital data is information.Before digital data,information was(and still is) held on papers,and that's protected by the fourth amendment.

Digital information just uses 0-s and 1-s which are stored on hard drives(or other storage devices).

[Misanthrope]

Statement 1) Its ok, sometimes these threads are difficult to keep track of. I wont hold it against you.

 

Statement 2) I kind of disagree. Asking an american company to follow american laws is well within its jurisdiction. No one is stealing anything (in this case at least). You still need that warrant/subpoena.  If they don't want to provide the requested information, regardless of its physical location, they would face sanctions an punishments under american law. No change than if you refuse to follow a subpoena or warrant within the US. You can make the decision to ignore it, but there will be consequences that you mus be prepared for. You have the choice to not allow the cops into your place when they have a search warrant, however there are consequences, in this case probably a broken down door and being arrested for contempt of court/impeding an investigation. 

 

Statement 3) Secret court? You lost me. This was not the work of any secret court, at least not from the information I have seen. In a warrant or subpoena the reason behind its issue is explained. But as I see it, that is not a requisite to a legal search, only valid approval by an official. These officials are held in check by publicly elected officials. Now if you want to discuss an overreach and/or corruption in the system, that is a separate, although valid, issue.

Well this is how the NSA operates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?pagewanted=all

As for the point 2 the information, even if it was emitted in the US originally, is no longer stored in a US server. It's like a wire transfer to an overseas bank account, you can't just order an American branch to basically steal the money back from another bank when the transaction has been completed. The due process of law is different for those kinds of situations and the same standards should be applied.

At most MS should be compelled to disconnect all further access to that data, going back to the off sore bank account a "freeze" of data access if you will, but actually retrieving it at the behest of America basically should not be compelled without an agreement reached via diplomatic means like extradition treaties to give you example, you can't send american police offices across international borders to apprehend suspects no matter what the crime might be.

[Nineshadow]

Wait wait...if digital information isn't protected by the 4th amendment...does stealing digital information become legal?

[LAwLz]

Wait wait...if digital information isn't protected by the 4th amendment...does stealing digital information become legal?

Very interesting point.

I guess my countless hours of building and pen-testing secure networks will finally come in useful.

Now there did I put the bookmark for my bank...

 

I'm kidding of course, but this might open a big can of worms. If the government can exploit and bend the rules, so can the average Joe.

[Misanthrope]

Very interesting point.

I guess my countless hours of building and pen-testing secure networks will finally come in useful.

Now there did I put the bookmark for my bank...

 

I'm kidding of course, but this might open a big can of worms. If the government can exploit and bend the rules, so can the average Joe.

Yeah if this continues the rest of the world needs to basically build infrastructure and separate networks to specifically avoid any contact with US servers, kinda like a "No Homers" club if you will.

[Mooshi]

Pretty much every computer is linked to the internet.If not,it's linked to another and that one to another and it keeps going till one is connected to the internet.This makes everything accessible via the internet.

 

What they said is that the 4th amendment doesn't refer to digital data,something which is totally crazy,because digital data is information.Before digital data,information was(and still is) held on papers,and that's protected by the fourth amendment.

Digital information just uses 0-s and 1-s which are stored on hard drives(or other storage devices).

 

Wait, I thought this was referring to cloud storage being open to access without protection, not digital files all together..what on Earth is wrong with my government? Guess I should learn a European language..

[Misanthrope]

Wait, I thought this was referring to cloud storage being open to access without protection, not digital files all together..what on Earth is wrong with my government? Guess I should learn a European language..

 

Just go visit the Swedes, I read that like 80% of them speak english anyway. Maybe you can even borrow Lawlz lollipop porn or whatever it's called.

[Nineshadow]

Wait, I thought this was referring to cloud storage being open to access without protection, not digital files all together..what on Earth is wrong with my government? Guess I should learn a European language..

Well...in this exact case they're referring to information stored on a Microsoft server.

They said that content stored online doesn't fit the fourth amendment.

Only God knows they meant by "content stored online".That's pretty much all content stored on any server.Or does that involve more?

Their explaination was too vague.

[Real_PhillBert]

But where their argument falls down is that they are arguing that digital assets are different to other assets.  The U.S. government doesn't have the power to search a home in another country, nor should it have the power to search the content of email stored overseas.   Just because the thing they want to search is digital does not change the rational behind the law.  

 

But their not saying they shouldn't have to comply with warrants and subpenas, they are claiming the warrants are not legitimate in the first place because the target evidence is not on American soil. 

 

I do agree that the US government does not have the right or jurisdiction to search a house located on foreign soil, furthermore I would 100% agree with you that information held by US companies overseas was not immediately accessible and (presumably) placed there from the United States. If the server where the information is held is not in any way connected to a terminal in the US, you are right, they should not have to give the information. However this is not the case, the information can be accessed from american soil and was placed there by american citizen on US soil. 

 

Digital information saved on a network cannot be held in the same regard as physical material because they are simply not the same. For example, lets pretend for a minute that the DropBox servers are in Dublin, and I am some type of organized crime boss and have put pictures of my crimes on dropbox. Do you think that because these servers are off US soil the courts should not be able to access them even with a legal warrant? This is an issue that there really isn't a right answer to, so its ok to say no. But I would say that the information in my dropbox does fall under the jurisdiction of a search warrant.

 

This is obviously not the same as the same crime boss keeping kilo's of cocaine in a warehouse in Dublin. That would obviously not fall under the jurisdiction of a search warrant because as hard as I may try, I cannot access them from US soil.

 

Its totally cool to disagree with what I am saying here. This is just how I am seeing this case.

[Misanthrope]

I do agree that the US government does not have the right or jurisdiction to search a house located on foreign soil, furthermore I would 100% agree with you that information held by US companies overseas was not immediately accessible and (presumably) placed there from the United States. If the server where the information is held is not in any way connected to a terminal in the US, you are right, they should not have to give the information. However this is not the case, the information can be accessed from american soil and was placed there by american citizen on US soil. 

 

Digital information saved on a network cannot be held in the same regard as physical material because they are simply not the same. For example, lets pretend for a minute that the DropBox servers are in Dublin, and I am some type of organized crime boss and have put pictures of my crimes on dropbox. Do you think that because these servers are off US soil the courts should not be able to access them even with a legal warrant? This is an issue that there really isn't a right answer to, so its ok to say no. But I would say that the information in my dropbox does fall under the jurisdiction of a search warrant.

 

This is obviously not the same as the same crime boss keeping kilo's of cocaine in a warehouse in Dublin. That would obviously not fall under the jurisdiction of a search warrant because as hard as I may try, I cannot access them from US soil.

 

Its totally cool to disagree with what I am saying here. This is just how I am seeing this case.

 

That's not how cloud works. It might look transparent to the user but everything is stored on an actual server that has to be contacted. Restricting access to the files is as reasonable as restricting access to a foreign house, the only difference is that you can travel to that location at well the speed of light really, but nothing else.

[Nineshadow]

I do agree that the US government does not have the right or jurisdiction to search a house located on foreign soil, furthermore I would 100% agree with you that information held by US companies overseas was not immediately accessible and (presumably) placed there from the United States. If the server where the information is held is not in any way connected to a terminal in the US, you are right, they should not have to give the information. However this is not the case, the information can be accessed from american soil and was placed there by american citizen on US soil. 

 

Digital information saved on a network cannot be held in the same regard as physical material because they are simply not the same. For example, lets pretend for a minute that the DropBox servers are in Dublin, and I am some type of organized crime boss and have put pictures of my crimes on dropbox. Do you think that because these servers are off US soil the courts should not be able to access them even with a legal warrant? This is an issue that there really isn't a right answer to, so its ok to say no. But I would say that the information in my dropbox does fall under the jurisdiction of a search warrant.

 

This is obviously not the same as the same crime boss keeping kilo's of cocaine in a warehouse in Dublin. That would obviously not fall under the jurisdiction of a search warrant because as hard as I may try, I cannot access them from US soil.

 

Its totally cool to disagree with what I am saying here. This is just how I am seeing this case.

According to what you call "can be contacted" : I can contact a house off US soil too by plane or something.It just takes way more time than the speed of light(or the speed of electrons going through copper,etc.)

[Real_PhillBert]

Well this is how the NSA operates:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?pagewanted=all

As for the point 2 the information, even if it was emitted in the US originally, is no longer stored in a US server. It's like a wire transfer to an overseas bank account, you can't just order an American branch to basically steal the money back from another bank when the transaction has been completed. The due process of law is different for those kinds of situations and the same standards should be applied.

At most MS should be compelled to disconnect all further access to that data, going back to the off sore bank account a "freeze" of data access if you will, but actually retrieving it at the behest of America basically should not be compelled without an agreement reached via diplomatic means like extradition treaties to give you example, you can't send american police offices across international borders to apprehend suspects no matter what the crime might be.

 

The NSA has exactly zero to do with this situation. Moving on...

 

An overseas bank is very different than a server owned by the original party. But I see your point. And if the information was not immediately accessible from a location in the US I would agree with you. But because the information is accessible from within the united states, I dont. In my humble opinion the courts should have the authority to order (given a valid warrant or subpoena) anyone in the US to go to hand over the information that is readily available from that location. If the information was not accessible, then you are off the hook, if you can access it from a terminal in the US, your SOL.

 

This is just my humble opinion. You are of course allowed to disagree. 

[Real_PhillBert]

According to what you call "can be contacted" : I can contact a house off US soil too by plane or something.It just takes way more time than the speed of light(or the speed of electrons going through copper,etc.)

 

Thats just it, you have to leave the US to do so. With electronic information you do not have to.

[Real_PhillBert]

That's not how cloud works. It might look transparent to the user but everything is stored on an actual server that has to be contacted. Restricting access to the files is as reasonable as restricting access to a foreign house, the only difference is that you can travel to that location at well the speed of light really, but nothing else.

 

The key difference is that you cannot access that house in another country without leaving the US.

[Nineshadow]

Now comes an international law problem...

If digital data isn't protected by the fourth amendment then digital theft is legal,because it's legal to get them EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD without a warrant.So...digital theft is legal everywhere in the world,right?Well...it's definitely not.

[Nineshadow]

Thats just it, you have to leave the US to do so. With electronic information you do not have to.

You can.

Just send someone else.

 

Electrons "leave"(kind of) the US too,and you remain at the terminal.

[Real_PhillBert]

You can.

Send someone else.

 

Warrants and Subpoena's do not apply to someone else. And even if they did, they have no bounds overseas, only on US soil.

[Real_PhillBert]

Now comes an international law problem...

If digital data isn't protected by the fourth amendment then digital theft is legal,because it's legal to get them EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD without a warrant.So...digital theft is legal everywhere in the world,right?Well...it's definitely not.

 

The title of that article is really misleading. I know it says that digital data is not protected by the fourth amendment, but he legislation that it is referring to does not violate the fourth amendment. What the legislation says is that if the information can be accessed from the US it still falls under the authority of a valid warrant of subpoena.

 

No fourth amendment violations here. Its saying that digital information falls under the same laws as physical media in the US. At least for US citizens. 

[Nineshadow]

The title of that article is really misleading. I know it says that digital data is not protected by the fourth amendment, but he legislation that it is referring to does not violate the fourth amendment. What the legislation says is that if the information can be accessed from the US it still falls under the authority of a valid warrant of subpoena.

 

No fourth amendment violations here. Its saying that digital information falls under the same laws as physical media in the US. At least for US citizens. 

Again,it's too vague.

" content stored online simply do not have the same Fourth Amendment protections as physical data:"

Does it not have all the 4th Amendment protections,or just some of them?If it doesn't have any of them(which hasn't been made clear),then getting it with a warrant doesn't become necessary,right?

 

Their explaination was way way too vague.Too much interpretation.

[Real_PhillBert]

Again,it's too vague.

" content stored online simply do not have the same Fourth Amendment protections as physical data:"

Does it not have all the 4th Amendment protections,or just some of them?If it doesn't have any of them(which hasn't been made clear),then getting it with a warrant doesn't become necessary,right?

 

Their explaination was way way too vague.Too much interpretation.

 

No, that's not what the legislation says. The legislation says that you still need a valid warrant or subpoena to access information. The controversial part is that they are saying that as long as the information is owned by Americans or american companies, it does not matter where the data is stored, the owner must comply with a valid warrant or subpoena and provide the requested information. The article is a really bad one and seems to be trying to get people upset. Again, this has pretty much nothing to do with the forth amendment. 

[Misanthrope]

Not to mention that there is no content being "stored" online, there's always a server. Now unless you put a server on a satellite and its constantly on a moving orbit then it could be considered to be "stored online" Though I'd imagine those pings and transfer speeds would suck 

[Nineshadow]

No, that's not what the legislation says. The legislation says that you still need a valid warrant or subpoena to access information. The controversial part is that they are saying that as long as the information is owned by Americans or american companies, it does not matter where the data is stored, the owner must comply with a valid warrant or subpoena and provide the requested information. The article is a really bad one and seems to be trying to get people upset. Again, this has pretty much nothing to do with the forth amendment. 

I understand what you're saying,don't get me wrong,but I'm not after that.I know that's what they meant.It's something it's not even worth arguing.

But what does this mean?

" content stored online simply do not have the same Fourth Amendment protections as physical data:"

It can mean a lot of things.

[Misanthrope]

I also didn't notice the "physical data" part, what would that be, DNA? Maybe punching cards from the 70s?

[Real_PhillBert]

I understand what you're saying,don't get me wrong,but I'm not after that.I know that's what they meant.It's something it's not even worth arguing.

But what does this mean?

" content stored online simply do not have the same Fourth Amendment protections as physical data:"

It can mean a lot of things.

 

Your 100% right. The article is very misleading. Its important to look at what the actual legislation says, as that is the law. The quote you have picked out is not part of the legislation. But as you say, it could mean a lot of things. Fortunately, none of it matters. Only what is written in the law matters.