The United States Supreme Court has decided to hear a landmark internet privacy case that will determine whether the U.S. government can demand user-data stored by tech companies abroad, U.S. v. Microsoft. In 2013, federal investigators obtained a warrant for emails and identifying information stored in a Microsoft Outlook account believed to be used for organized drug trafficking. However, the emails were stored in Ireland. When presented with the warrant, Microsoft turned over information stored in the U.S, but refused to retrieve any data stored in Ireland. The federal court of appeals decided in favor of Microsoft, holding that emails stored abroad are outside the reach of a U.S. government search warrant.
The implications of the Supreme Court’s decision will almost certainly effect most consumers and businesses. A decision in favor of the Department of Justice could mean the government will be able to access private tech company data stored anywhere in the world as long as the government has a valid search warrant to issue to a U.S. company controlling that data.
Both parties’ arguments provide compelling motivations one way or the other. In a nutshell, Microsoft’s argument is that the U.S government is extending its laws across international borders, which, according to Microsoft, means if the U.S. were to do so, other countries may begin doing the same to the U.S. On the other hand, the Department of Justice argues that tech companies’ refusals to comply with search warrants hinders the government’s ability to obtain electronic evidence in thousands of crimes ranging from terrorism to fraud.
In its decision, the court of appeals cited the 1986 Stored Communications Act which allows legal probes but doesn’t extend to data held overseas. Leading up to the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case, Microsoft argued Congress instead should update the Stored Communications Act to reflect the protections needed for our digital world. Microsoft has commented that the Act was written in the era of the floppy disk, not the era of the cloud, and that time is better spent passing a new law than arguing over an old one. This case will be interesting to follow as it is sure to generate quite a lot of buzz leading up to formal hearings.