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
106 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: @Fall Under Cerulean Kites has the right solution: Get the warrant in the proper jurisdiction.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Fall Under Cerulean Kites Avatar
106 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
106 months ago
Governmental overreach at it's finest. Google needs to win this.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
soupcan Avatar
106 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
106 months ago
Shouldn't this article be PRSI? :confused:
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
69Mustang Avatar
106 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)

Popular Stories

AirPods Pro 3 Mock Feature

AirPods Pro 3 Just Months Away – Here's What We Know

Friday April 18, 2025 5:16 am PDT by
Despite being more than two years old, Apple's AirPods Pro 2 still dominate the premium wireless‑earbud space, thanks to a potent mix of top‑tier audio, class‑leading noise cancellation, and Apple's habit of delivering major new features through software updates. With AirPods Pro 3 widely expected to arrive in 2025, prospective buyers now face a familiar dilemma: snap up the proven...
iphone 17 air dummy unbox therapy

iPhone 17 Air's Extreme Thinness Demoed in New Video

Tuesday April 22, 2025 10:22 am PDT by
Apple plans to release an all-new super thin iPhone this year, debuting it alongside the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max. We've seen pictures of dummy models, cases, and renders with the design, but Lewis Hilsenteger of Unbox Therapy today showed off newer dummy models that give us a better idea of just how thin the "iPhone 17 Air" will be. The iPhone 17 Air is expected to be ...
iphone 17 dummies sonny dickson

iPhone 17 Air Almost as Thin as Its Buttons, New Images Show

Thursday April 24, 2025 2:14 am PDT by
If you missed the video showing dummy models of Apple's all-new super thin iPhone 17 Air that's expected later this year, Sonny Dickson this morning shared some further images of the device in close alignment with the other dummy models in the iPhone 17 lineup, indicating just how thin it is likely to be in comparison. The iPhone 17 Air is expected to be around 5.5mm thick – with a thicker ...
ipad air windows 11 arm

M2 iPad Air Runs Windows 11 ARM via Emulation, Thanks to EU Rules

Tuesday April 22, 2025 5:01 am PDT by
A developer has demonstrated Windows 11 ARM running on an M2 iPad Air using emulation, which has become much easier since the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) regulations came into effect. As spotted by Windows Latest, NTDev shared an instance of the emulation on social media and posted a video on YouTube (embedded below) demonstrating it in action. The achievement relies on new EU regulatory...
iphone 16 pro models 1

17 Reasons to Wait for the iPhone 17

Thursday April 17, 2025 4:12 am PDT by
Apple's iPhone development roadmap runs several years into the future and the company is continually working with suppliers on several successive iPhone models simultaneously, which is why we often get rumored features months ahead of launch. The iPhone 17 series is no different, and we already have a good idea of what to expect from Apple's 2025 smartphone lineup. If you skipped the iPhone...
iOS 18

iOS 18.5 Includes Only a Few Changes So Far

Monday April 21, 2025 11:00 am PDT by
Apple seeded the third beta of iOS 18.5 to developers today, and so far the software update includes only a few minor changes. The changes are in the Mail and Settings apps. In the Mail app, you can now easily turn off contact photos directly within the app, by tapping on the circle with three dots in the top-right corner. In the Settings app, AppleCare+ coverage information is more...
iPhone 17 Pro Blue Feature Tighter Crop

iPhone 17 Pro Launching Later This Year With These 13 New Features

Wednesday April 23, 2025 8:31 am PDT by
While the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are not expected to launch until September, there are already plenty of rumors about the devices. Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models as of April 2025: Aluminum frame: iPhone 17 Pro models are rumored to have an aluminum frame, whereas the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro models have a titanium frame, and the iPhone ...