The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Microsoft’s ongoing dispute with the U.S. government over Irish-held data. The lead-up to the case is summarized here and my recap of oral argument is here.
Andrew Keane Woods is a Professor of Law at the University of Arizona College of Law. Before that, he was a postdoctoral cybersecurity fellow at Stanford University. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Cambridge, where he was a Gates Scholar.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument Tuesday morning in United States v. Microsoft Corp.—a case that readers will by now be familiar with. (See a fantastic summary of Lawfare coverage here).
Robert Mueller’s indictment of Russians suspected of interfering in the 2016 presidential elections is remarkable for a number of reasons. It is remarkable because it suggests that Mueller’s team was able to identify the organizational structure of a group of Russians who were acting in a manner deliberately designed to appear organic and not coordinated.
The issue of law enforcement access to data held abroad is in the news again with the Supreme Court set to hear oral argument in United States v. Microsoft on Feb. 27, and Congress considering the recently-announced CLOUD Act.
Lawfare readers are familiar with the perennial regulatory challenge of determining which country’s law enforcement agents ought to be able to access internet data stored in the cloud. This is a considerable problem in two distinct contexts: (1) American law enforcement officers seeking access to data held abroad and (2) law enforcement officers around the world seeking access to data held by American firms.
The Supreme Court announced this morning that it will grant the Department of Justice’s petition for a writ of certiorari in its dispute with Microsoft over access to emails stored on the company’s Irish servers. The crux of the dispute is the territorial reach (and territorial applicability) of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), a subset of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) that governs law enforcement access to communications data.
Google filed a complaint this week in the Northern District of California to challenge a Canadian Supreme Court ruling that requires Google to delist—that is, remove from its search results—links to certain offending pages. (I wrote about the Canadian case here.) In short, Google’s attempt to fight a global takedown order in Canada was stymied by the fact that the order did not pose a conflict of laws.