Los Angeles Times

Justices question Microsoft on emails

Company refuses to turn over content stored outside U.S.

- By David G. Savage

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices sounded skeptical Tuesday about Microsoft’s refusal to turn over emails sought by U.S. law enforcemen­t agents with a criminal search warrant but stored by the software giant in overseas servers.

The case of the United States vs. Microsoft has been hailed by some as a major test of privacy in a world where electronic traffic is stored in a digital cloud. Many observers say the federal law known as the Stored Communicat­ions Act of 1986 is hopelessly outdated. And some said the court should stand aside until Congress adopts a new law.

But most of the justices seemed to agree with Justice Department lawyer Michael Dreeben, who argued that the court needed to decide the case based on current law and on the idea that a criminal search warrant from a judge must be honored.

The dispute arose during a routine federal drug traffickin­g investigat­ion in the New York area. In 2013, federal agents went to court there and obtained a search warrant based on probable cause for “all emails” for a still-unidentifi­ed Microsoft customer. But when the warrant was served at Microsoft’s headquarte­rs in Redmond, Wash., the company refused to turn over the contents of the emails, saying they were held in a data center in Dublin, Ireland.

Though federal agents said Microsoft simply needed to push a button in Redmond to download the emails, the company said they were outside the reach of U.S. law because they were stored on a server in Ireland.

A federal judge was prepared to hold Microsoft in contempt for its refusal to comply. But to the surprise of federal authoritie­s, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Microsoft’s contention that the federal law on “stored communicat­ions” did not allow for an “extraterri­torial applicatio­n.” Unlike other major cases about searches and seizures, the case turned only on the federal law and not on the 4th Amendment to the Constituti­on.

The Justice Department appealed to the Supreme Court, fearing that the ruling, if left intact, could undermine criminal prosecutio­ns on many fronts.

During Tuesday’s argument, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said Microsoft’s position would be good news for people who wanted to break the law.

They could conduct illegal business via email in the U.S. with the assurance their messages would remain safe and off-limits to investigat­ors because they were held in Canada or Ireland, Roberts reasoned. It could be a good business move for the company as well, he said.

Outside court after the hearing, Microsoft President Brad Smith said Congress needed to take action to resolve the matter.

“We need 21st century laws to protect 21st century technology,” he said. “This case is fundamenta­lly about a law that was passed across the street in Congress in 1986. It is a law that was never intended to reach around the world or into our data center in Ireland.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States