US orders Microsoft to turn over cloud data stored overseas

A US judge has ordered

Microsoft to turn over

information stored in a data

centres in Ireland, in a

ruling that could have major

implications for the cloud

industry.

The case dates back to

April when a magistrate

judge in New York ruled

that Microsoft must provide

access to data, regardless

of location. Even Microsoft’s

rivals Apple voiced their

concern with the ruling.

Microsoft appealed against

the initial ruling but was

again shot down in the

courts, after US district

judge Loretta Preska ruled

in favour of the government. "It is a question of control, not a question of the location of that information,” she was

reported as saying.

Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith has promised that the firm will appeal again. “The only issue that was certain

this morning was that the District Court’s decision would not represent the final step in this process,” he said.

“We will appeal promptly and continue to advocate that people’s email deserves strong privacy protection in the US and

around the world.”

Microsoft has been one of the most vocal companies to criticise the US government for its interference in the

technology market, calling out the National Security Agency for creating friction between itself and customers due to

the PRISM revelations.

However, if the ruling is upheld through the court process, Microsoft and other US cloud vendors will face major

challenges convincing firms in other parts of the world, including Europe, to use their cloud services.

One silver lining of the ruling, though, could be that European-headquartered cloud firms will be beyond the reach of the

US government, which may appeal to many businesses in the region and help them secure customers over their US

rivals.

​Supreme Court Rules Warrantless Cell Phone Data Search And Tracking Illegal

Today, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision on data privacy, holding 9-0 that neither police officers nor federal law enforcement have a unilateral right to search cellphones without first procuring a warrant. Prior to today, the government had previously argued that the police could search a cell phone under previous court rulings that extended such rights in limited cases, including incidents where the officers on the scene had reason to believe evidence could be destroyed or that the evidence was on the individual (or within arms' reach).

What the Court recognized today is that a cell phone is something unique from a pack of cigarettes or a glove compartment that might contain a firearm. Not only are the contents of a cell phone potentially far more personal than the typical contents of a purse, the fact that everyone carries cell phones these days is a fundamental shift from previous decades. The Court notes: "Prior to the digital age, people did not typically carry a cache of sensitive personal information with them as they went about their day. Now it is the person who is not carrying a cellphone, with all that it contains, who is the exception."

Before cell phones, a search of a person was limited by physical realities and generally constituted only a narrow invasion on privacy. But cell phones can store millions of pages of text, thousands of pictures, or hundreds of videos. This has several interrelated privacy consequences. First, a cell phone collects in one place many distinct types of information that reveal much more in combination than any isolated record. Second, the phone's capacity allows just even just one type of information to reveal far more than previously possible. Third, data on a phone can date back for years.

This is a critically important decision because it illustrates that the Supreme Court actually understands many of the issues swirling around privacy and digital data. By expanding the right to privacy in this way, the Court may have inadvertently given a boost to some of the NSA-blocking efforts. If warrantless searches are illegal due to the specific, long-lasting, and particular nature of the search, it may give privacy advocates another lever in the long-term attempt to push back the encroachment of the NSA.

The current court doesn't agree on much -- but it came together 9-0 on cell phone privacy

This is the second case in which the Supreme Court has struck at police practices that rely on invading citizen privacy; the first involved the use of a GPS tracking device to monitor a vehicle for 28 days without a warrant. We've already seen repeated cases in which cops have used stingray cell phone towers to track and determine the location of suspected criminals -- hopefully this kind of decision makes it easier to ban the use of stingraydevices without the use of warrants. One of the facts the Supreme Court hammered in its decision is that this case doesn't make a cell phone's immune to searches -- it just requires the police to treat them the same way they'd treat a home search and to hop through the necessary hoops.

Smartphone Kill Switch Law A Safe Haven For Consumers Or ‘Tyranny’ When The Government Can Brick Your Phone?

We're often told that having a kill switch in our mobile devices - mostly our smartphones - is a good thing. At a basic level, that's hard to disagree with. If every mobile device had a built-in kill switch, theft would go down. Who'd waste their time over a device that probably won't work for very long?

Here's where the problem lays: It's law enforcement that's pushing so hard for these kill switches. We first learned about this last summer, and this past May, California passed a law that requires smartphone vendors to implement the feature. In practice, if a smartphone has been stolen, or has been somehow compromised, its user or maker would be able to remotely kill off its usability, something that would be reversed once the phone gets back into its rightful owner's hands.

I don't think many would argue that having a kill switch in a mobile phone is a bad thing, per se. It's already been proven that it can reduce theft. However, such functionality should be limited to the device's owner, and no one else. This mechanic isn't new, of course - we took a brief look at Google's solution last fall - but its caveats could soon get worse.

FOSS Force makes a couple of good arguments about these potential downsides, with the overarching one being that law enforcement could make use of these kill switches for their own benefit. With the advent of the video recording feature on our smartphones, we've all gained the ability to prove what went on in an important situation, and it goes without saying that in some cases, had user video not been shot, the outcome or verdict could have been completely different.

"If the owner can disable a phone with nothing but access to a computer or another mobile device, so can Google,Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia or Apple. Google and Apple have already demonstrated their ability to remove software from all devices using their respective operating systems. If the designers of a phone’s operating system can brick a phone, guess who else can do the same? Everybody from the NSA to your friendly neighborhood police force, that’s who. At most, all they’ll need is a convincing argument that they’re acting in the interest of 'public safety.'"

A couple of years ago, such statements might have come off as overly paranoid, but ever since Edward Snowden's NSA leaks, it seems completely probable. What's also probable is that a market of phones without a kill switch could rise, and likewise, many may choose to root the phone they already own to disable the kill switch feature.

I don't know about you, but I find the potential for abuse here to be a little scary. Given the option, would you opt-out of having a kill switch in your mobile phone, even if it meant that you'd be out of luck if it were stolen?