I don't understand why this is bad.
The argument makes sense. If you are conducting your business via email using an American provider, expect it to be subject to American law.
I don't see how this could be unusual or a shock to anyone.
The argument makes sense. If you are conducting your business via email using an American provider, expect it to be subject to American law.
I don't see how this could be unusual or a shock to anyone.
Jurisdiction is an important concept, and if the american justice starts using the good economic position of its companies to bypass or expand its jurisdiction, it should be expected that the feedback will effect said economic position.
While this case seems to be a bit different from the Ms case, the court essentially orders a private entity to take action in a foreign country, something which it could not do itself. This seems wrong to me. Instead, the issue is probably that this info should probably not be foreign if the producers were domestic.
If it were a real concern to anyone, the EU countries would have simply used their big stick and started banning Google and Microsoft from doing business until they cleaned up their acts.
And they'd have done it years ago.
As long as it's the US government violating your privacy, those EU countries are perfectly happy to see their data privacy laws neutered.
At least currently, there seems to be a trend in the EU pleading to shield ourselves from US interference, and the tech cos are probably the obvious first target.
This is only acceptable if you think the United States governs the world. See 'Extraterritorial Jurisdiction'.
If i, as swiss, would have a company in switzerland and a brunch in the U.S. and move all the data to switzerland while claiming to be a U.S. company you may would think that is wrong as well.