Microsoft on Thursday scored a big victory on a keenly watched privacy battlefront, with a US appeals court exonerating the company for refusing to give police user data stored overseas. 
 
A three-judge panel in a US court of appeals in New York City ordered that a finding of contempt against Microsoft be tossed out along with the warrant in the case. 
 
The December 2013 warrant directed Microsoft to turn over the contents of an email account used by a suspected drug trafficker. 
 
Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft handed over account information it kept on US soil, but said the content of emails was off-limits because it was stored on servers in Ireland, according to a summary of the case. 
 
The citizenship and location of the suspected drug trafficker were not revealed. 
 
The warrant had been issued under provisions of Stored Communications Act (SCA) legislation enacted as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. 
 
Judge Susan Carney of the appeals court said that the SCA does not give US courts authority to force internet companies in the United States to seize customer email contents stored on foreign servers. 
 
&quot;We conclude that Congress did not intend the SCA&#39;s warrant provisions to apply extraterritorially,&quot; the judges said. 
 
&quot;The focus of those provisions is protection of a user&#39;s privacy interests.&quot; Microsoft welcomed the decision, saying it helped insure people&#39;s privacy rights are protected by laws in their own countries. 
 
The case had been closely watched by those who feared that a ruling against Microsoft would pave the way for countries to force internet firms to disclose user data no matter where in the world it was kept. 
 
&quot;This decision provides a major victory for the protection of people`s privacy rights under their own laws rather than the reach of foreign governments,&quot; Microsoft chief legal officer Brad Smith said in an email. 
 
&quot;It makes clear that the US Congress did not give the US Government the authority to use search warrants unilaterally to reach beyond US borders.&quot; 
 
Knowing personal information will be protected by local law is also imperative for people to trust technology companies, Smith reasoned. 
The long-running case has been a key point of concern for online service providers and their users. 
 
If the Department of Justice had triumphed over Microsoft in the case, other countries would have easily seen it as a green light to use their own laws to demand data stored in the US, said Greg Nojeim, a project director at Washington-based nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology. 
 
&quot;It would have been like the Wild West and disaster for privacy,&quot; Nojeim said.The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington-based tech policy think tank which supported Microsoft&#39;s case, said data stored in other countries should be sought under auspices of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty designed to let police agencies around the world to help one another. 
 
&quot;The question here isn&#39;t whether the US government can gain lawful access to this data, but rather the process it should use to do so,&quot; said ITIF vice president Daniel Castro. 
 
The US has such mutual assistance treaties with more than 50 countries, including Ireland, according to Castro. 
 
Microsoft&#39;s legal win came with the risk that foreign governments would begin forcing tech companies to rely on local servers to keep information away from US authorities, the ITIF warned. 
 
The group was among several urging US political leaders to speed efforts to improve the MLAT process and create a global framework for governments to legally access data stored in the cloud. 
 
(AFP)

The December 2013 warrant directed Microsoft to turn over the contents of an email account used by a suspected drug trafficker

Microsoft on Thursday scored a big victory on a keenly watched privacy battlefront, with a US appeals court exonerating the company for refusing to give police user data stored overseas. A three-judge panel in a US court of appeals in New York City ordered that a finding of contempt against Microsoft be tossed out along with the warrant in the case. The December 2013 warrant directed Microsoft to turn over the contents of an email account used by a suspected drug trafficker. Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft handed over account information it kept on US soil, but said the content of emails was off-limits because it was stored on servers in Ireland, according to a summary of the case. The citizenship and location of the suspected drug trafficker were not revealed. The warrant had been issued under provisions of Stored Communications Act (SCA) legislation enacted as part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Judge Susan Carney of the appeals court said that the SCA does not give US courts authority to force internet companies in the United States to seize customer email contents stored on foreign servers. "We conclude that Congress did not intend the SCA's warrant provisions to apply extraterritorially," the judges said. "The focus of those provisions is protection of a user's privacy interests." Microsoft welcomed the decision, saying it helped insure people's privacy rights are protected by laws in their own countries. The case had been closely watched by those who feared that a ruling against Microsoft would pave the way for countries to force internet firms to disclose user data no matter where in the world it was kept. "This decision provides a major victory for the protection of people`s privacy rights under their own laws rather than the reach of foreign governments," Microsoft chief legal officer Brad Smith said in an email. "It makes clear that the US Congress did not give the US Government the authority to use search warrants unilaterally to reach beyond US borders." Knowing personal information will be protected by local law is also imperative for people to trust technology companies, Smith reasoned. The long-running case has been a key point of concern for online service providers and their users. If the Department of Justice had triumphed over Microsoft in the case, other countries would have easily seen it as a green light to use their own laws to demand data stored in the US, said Greg Nojeim, a project director at Washington-based nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology. "It would have been like the Wild West and disaster for privacy," Nojeim said.The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a Washington-based tech policy think tank which supported Microsoft's case, said data stored in other countries should be sought under auspices of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty designed to let police agencies around the world to help one another. "The question here isn't whether the US government can gain lawful access to this data, but rather the process it should use to do so," said ITIF vice president Daniel Castro. The US has such mutual assistance treaties with more than 50 countries, including Ireland, according to Castro. Microsoft's legal win came with the risk that foreign governments would begin forcing tech companies to rely on local servers to keep information away from US authorities, the ITIF warned. The group was among several urging US political leaders to speed efforts to improve the MLAT process and create a global framework for governments to legally access data stored in the cloud. (AFP)

Microsoft wins appeal to protect overseas data

The top elected US Republican formally asked the country&#39;s intelligence chief not to give Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton any classified information during the election campaign, according to a letter released today. 
 
House of Representatives speaker Paul Ryan said in the letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that denying Clinton classified briefings during her run for the presidency would be an appropriate sanction for her improper handling of classified emails while secretary of state. 
 
Presidential candidates normally get access to classified information once they are formally nominated. 
 
The issue of Clinton&#39;s use of private email servers during her tenure as secretary of state has cast a cloud over her presidential campaign for the Nov. 8 election, raised questions among voters about her trustworthiness and given presidential rival Donald Trump an avenue of attack. 
 
Ryan&#39;s letter comes as congressional Republicans will get their first chance to grill FBI Director James Comey when he goes to Capitol Hill today to explain his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton after a year-long investigation of her handling of classified emails while at state. 
 
Comey&#39;s testimony before the House Oversight Committee at 10 a.m. (1400 GMT) will be the first time he has taken questions publicly since his announcement this week that the FBI was not recommending charges against Clinton. US Attorney General Loretta Lynch has accepted the FBI recommendation and will appear at a separate hearing next Tuesday. 
 
Comey said on Tuesday that 110 classified emails passed through Clinton&#39;s servers, which were not kept on a secure government server. He rebuked the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for &quot;extremely careless&quot; handling of classified information but said no reasonable prosecutor would charge her or her staff criminally. 
 
The Clinton campaign said it was pleased at the FBI&#39;s announcement and called the Republican-led call for Comey&#39;s hearing a &quot;taxpayer-funded sham of an inquiry&quot; intended to hurt Clinton politically. 
 
The Oversight Committee is chaired by Republican U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, known for his persistent questioning of Obama administration officials. 
 
Reputation for Independence 
 
Comey, a Republican who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and also served in the administration of former Republican President George W. Bush, has built a reputation as a straight shooter who does not bend to pressure from either party. 
 
He has differed sharply with the Obama administration, most recently over gun control and whether high-profile police brutality cases had inhibited law enforcement from stopping crime. 
 
Questions about the propriety of Clinton&#39;s use of unauthorized email servers in her Chappaqua, New York, home during her time as secretary of state from January 2009 until February 2013 have raised questions about her judgment from all sides of the political spectrum. 
 
Despite clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton can expect a further onslaught of attacks from Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who has accused her of playing by a different set of rules from the American public. 
 
&quot;Hillary Clinton can&#39;t keep her emails safe, and you know what, folks, she sure as hell can&#39;t keep our country safe,&quot; Trump told a recent rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, charging that the investigation was &quot;rigged&quot; in Clinton&#39;s favor. 
 
Comey left the door open for other actions in the case, including downgrading security clearances for anyone who mishandles classified information as Clinton and her staff did. 
 
(Reuters)

Ryan said denying Hillary Clinton classified briefings would be an appropriate sanction for her improper handling of classified email

The top elected US Republican formally asked the country's intelligence chief not to give Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton any classified information during the election campaign, according to a letter released today. House of Representatives speaker Paul Ryan said in the letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that denying Clinton classified briefings during her run for the presidency would be an appropriate sanction for her improper handling of classified emails while secretary of state. Presidential candidates normally get access to classified information once they are formally nominated. The issue of Clinton's use of private email servers during her tenure as secretary of state has cast a cloud over her presidential campaign for the Nov. 8 election, raised questions among voters about her trustworthiness and given presidential rival Donald Trump an avenue of attack. Ryan's letter comes as congressional Republicans will get their first chance to grill FBI Director James Comey when he goes to Capitol Hill today to explain his decision not to recommend criminal charges against Clinton after a year-long investigation of her handling of classified emails while at state. Comey's testimony before the House Oversight Committee at 10 a.m. (1400 GMT) will be the first time he has taken questions publicly since his announcement this week that the FBI was not recommending charges against Clinton. US Attorney General Loretta Lynch has accepted the FBI recommendation and will appear at a separate hearing next Tuesday. Comey said on Tuesday that 110 classified emails passed through Clinton's servers, which were not kept on a secure government server. He rebuked the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee for "extremely careless" handling of classified information but said no reasonable prosecutor would charge her or her staff criminally. The Clinton campaign said it was pleased at the FBI's announcement and called the Republican-led call for Comey's hearing a "taxpayer-funded sham of an inquiry" intended to hurt Clinton politically. The Oversight Committee is chaired by Republican U.S. Representative Jason Chaffetz, known for his persistent questioning of Obama administration officials. Reputation for Independence Comey, a Republican who was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and also served in the administration of former Republican President George W. Bush, has built a reputation as a straight shooter who does not bend to pressure from either party. He has differed sharply with the Obama administration, most recently over gun control and whether high-profile police brutality cases had inhibited law enforcement from stopping crime. Questions about the propriety of Clinton's use of unauthorized email servers in her Chappaqua, New York, home during her time as secretary of state from January 2009 until February 2013 have raised questions about her judgment from all sides of the political spectrum. Despite clinching the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton can expect a further onslaught of attacks from Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, who has accused her of playing by a different set of rules from the American public. "Hillary Clinton can't keep her emails safe, and you know what, folks, she sure as hell can't keep our country safe," Trump told a recent rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, charging that the investigation was "rigged" in Clinton's favor. Comey left the door open for other actions in the case, including downgrading security clearances for anyone who mishandles classified information as Clinton and her staff did. (Reuters)

Speaker Paul Ryan formally asks that Clinton be denied classified data

The Belgian data protection authority lost a legal battle with Facebook on Wednesday in which it sought to stop the company from tracking online activities of non-Facebook users in Belgium who visit the site&#39;s pages. 
 
The Belgian Privacy Commission said that the Brussels Appeals Court had dismissed its case on the grounds that the regulator has no jurisdiction over Facebook Inc, which has its European headquarters in Ireland. 
 
That marks a victory for the US company, which staunchly maintained that only the Irish Data Protection Commissioner has jurisdiction over how it uses Europeans&#39; data. 
 
Facebook has had run-ins with a number of European privacy watchdogs over its use of user generated data. 
 
Belgium&#39;s data protection regulator took Facebook to court a year ago, accusing it of violating EU privacy law by tracking people without a Facebook account without their consent. 
 
The court ruled in favour of the regulator and ordered Facebook to stop tracking non-Facebook users when they visited a Facebook page or face a 250,000 euros ($277,000) fine per day. 
 
Facebook appealed the ruling. In the meantime, it said it would comply and stop using the so-called &#39;datr&#39; cookie which it places on user&#39;s browsers when they visit a Facebook.com site or click a Facebook &#39;Like&#39; button on other websites, allowing it to track the online activities of that browser. 
 
&quot;We are pleased with the court&#39;s decision and look forward to bringing all our services back online for the people in Belgium,&quot; a Facebook spokeswoman said. 
 
The Belgian regulator said it would look into launching a final appeal with the Court of Cassation, which can throw out previous judgments but not deliver new ones. 
 
&quot;Today&#39;s decision simply and purely means that the Belgian citizen cannot obtain the protection of his private life through the courts and tribunals when it concerns foreign actors,&quot; the regulator said in a statement. 
 
It added that the Court of Cassation had previously overruled the Court of Appeal on matters of jurisdiction over foreign companies. 
 
&quot;Thus the citizen is also exposed to massive violations of private life,&quot; said Willem Debeuckelaere, president of the Belgian privacy commission. 
 
The Brussels appeals court also threw out the Belgian privacy commission&#39;s claim that the case was urgent and required expedited procedure. 
 
(Reuters)

The Belgian body had sought to prevent Facebook from accessing data on non-Facebook users in the country via it's datr cookie

The Belgian data protection authority lost a legal battle with Facebook on Wednesday in which it sought to stop the company from tracking online activities of non-Facebook users in Belgium who visit the site's pages. The Belgian Privacy Commission said that the Brussels Appeals Court had dismissed its case on the grounds that the regulator has no jurisdiction over Facebook Inc, which has its European headquarters in Ireland. That marks a victory for the US company, which staunchly maintained that only the Irish Data Protection Commissioner has jurisdiction over how it uses Europeans' data. Facebook has had run-ins with a number of European privacy watchdogs over its use of user generated data. Belgium's data protection regulator took Facebook to court a year ago, accusing it of violating EU privacy law by tracking people without a Facebook account without their consent. The court ruled in favour of the regulator and ordered Facebook to stop tracking non-Facebook users when they visited a Facebook page or face a 250,000 euros ($277,000) fine per day. Facebook appealed the ruling. In the meantime, it said it would comply and stop using the so-called 'datr' cookie which it places on user's browsers when they visit a Facebook.com site or click a Facebook 'Like' button on other websites, allowing it to track the online activities of that browser. "We are pleased with the court's decision and look forward to bringing all our services back online for the people in Belgium," a Facebook spokeswoman said. The Belgian regulator said it would look into launching a final appeal with the Court of Cassation, which can throw out previous judgments but not deliver new ones. "Today's decision simply and purely means that the Belgian citizen cannot obtain the protection of his private life through the courts and tribunals when it concerns foreign actors," the regulator said in a statement. It added that the Court of Cassation had previously overruled the Court of Appeal on matters of jurisdiction over foreign companies. "Thus the citizen is also exposed to massive violations of private life," said Willem Debeuckelaere, president of the Belgian privacy commission. The Brussels appeals court also threw out the Belgian privacy commission's claim that the case was urgent and required expedited procedure. (Reuters)

Facebook wins privacy case against Belgian data protection authority

Britain&#39;s economic growth slowed in the first quarter from the previous three months, official data confirmed Thursday, as business investment faltered on uncertainty before the Brexit referendum. 
 
Gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.4 per cent, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said in a final estimate for the period between January and March, ahead of the June 23 European Union (EU) membership vote. 
 
That was unchanged from the previous figure, but marked a slowdown from the fourth quarter of 2015, which was revised up to 0.7 per cent expansion from 0.6 per cent. 
 
&quot;Business investment was highly likely limited by increased business caution ahead of the EU membership referendum,&quot; said IHS Global Insight economist Howard Archer. 
 
&quot;It was also disappointing to see exports of goods and services dip.&quot; 
 
In a shock referendum last Thursday, Britons voted to quit the EU in a so-called Brexit - despite warnings from the government and the International Monetary Fund of a potential recession. 
 
The outcome sparked the resignation of British Prime Minister David Cameron who backed the unsuccessful Remain campaign and will step down in the autumn. 
 
&quot;We can be confident that the economic recovery has lost further momentum in the second quarter as Brexit risk began to loom large,&quot; added economist Samuel Tombs at Pantheon Macro. 
 
&quot;Even if the referendum had led to continuation of the status quo, the UK&#39;s economic recovery would be slowing in response to tighter fiscal policy, moderating employment growth and slowly rising inflation. 
 
&quot;The referendum has turned a bad outlook into a terrible one, and we now expect collapsing business investment, a hiring freeze and much higher inflation to push the economy into recession.&quot; 
 
The technical definition of a recession is two or more successive quarters of economic contraction. 
 
(AFP)

With uncertainty looming before Brexit referendum, Britain's several economic sectors are adversely affected

Britain's economic growth slowed in the first quarter from the previous three months, official data confirmed Thursday, as business investment faltered on uncertainty before the Brexit referendum. Gross domestic product (GDP) grew 0.4 per cent, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said in a final estimate for the period between January and March, ahead of the June 23 European Union (EU) membership vote. That was unchanged from the previous figure, but marked a slowdown from the fourth quarter of 2015, which was revised up to 0.7 per cent expansion from 0.6 per cent. "Business investment was highly likely limited by increased business caution ahead of the EU membership referendum," said IHS Global Insight economist Howard Archer. "It was also disappointing to see exports of goods and services dip." In a shock referendum last Thursday, Britons voted to quit the EU in a so-called Brexit - despite warnings from the government and the International Monetary Fund of a potential recession. The outcome sparked the resignation of British Prime Minister David Cameron who backed the unsuccessful Remain campaign and will step down in the autumn. "We can be confident that the economic recovery has lost further momentum in the second quarter as Brexit risk began to loom large," added economist Samuel Tombs at Pantheon Macro. "Even if the referendum had led to continuation of the status quo, the UK's economic recovery would be slowing in response to tighter fiscal policy, moderating employment growth and slowly rising inflation. "The referendum has turned a bad outlook into a terrible one, and we now expect collapsing business investment, a hiring freeze and much higher inflation to push the economy into recession." The technical definition of a recession is two or more successive quarters of economic contraction. (AFP)

Britain's economic growth slows, says official data

A Luxembourg court today handed out suspended sentences to the two former accounting firm employees who leaked data about Luxembourg&#39;s tax deals with large corporations, which gained prominence in the so-called &quot;LuxLeaks&quot; affair. 
 
Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet, both French citizens and former employees of accounting firm PwC, received suspended sentences of 12 and nine months respectively. 
 
Deltour also received a fine of 1,500 euros ($1,665) while Halet was fined 1,000 euros. Both said they would appeal. 
 
French television journalist Edouard Perrin, who used the leaked data for a broadcast made in 2012, was acquitted of all charges. 
 
The case was seen as a delicate balancing act for the judge between upholding Luxembourg&#39;s strict secrecy laws and protecting whistleblowers. 
 
One of Deltour&#39;s lawyers William Bourdon called the verdict &quot;scandalous&quot;. The message of Luxembourg&#39;s justice system was for multinationals to &quot;sleep tight&quot;, he said. 
 
Outside of the court, Deltour was greeted by singing supporters. 
 
Over the course of the trial the court heard how Deltour had copied 45,000 pages of documents to which he gained access through a glitch in the company&#39;s servers, which had since been fixed. 
 
Prosecutors say this data and material supplied by Halet was used in the &#39;LuxLeaks&#39; revelations of November 2014 by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. 
 
The prosecutor had requested 18-month prison sentences and fines, far less than the five-year maximum for the charges that range from violating secrecy laws to theft and IT fraud. 
 
For Perrin the prosecutor had sought a fine, without specifying how high it should be. 
 
The leaked documents showed that companies such as PepsiCo, AIG and Deutsche Bank secured deals from Luxembourg to slash their tax bills. 
 
Luxembourg, a small country wedged in between France, Belgium and Germany, says other states have similar arrangements, and has offered to share details of the tax deals. 
 
(Reuters)

Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet received suspended jail sentences for sharing data about Luxembourg slashing taxes for big corporations

A Luxembourg court today handed out suspended sentences to the two former accounting firm employees who leaked data about Luxembourg's tax deals with large corporations, which gained prominence in the so-called "LuxLeaks" affair. Antoine Deltour and Raphael Halet, both French citizens and former employees of accounting firm PwC, received suspended sentences of 12 and nine months respectively. Deltour also received a fine of 1,500 euros ($1,665) while Halet was fined 1,000 euros. Both said they would appeal. French television journalist Edouard Perrin, who used the leaked data for a broadcast made in 2012, was acquitted of all charges. The case was seen as a delicate balancing act for the judge between upholding Luxembourg's strict secrecy laws and protecting whistleblowers. One of Deltour's lawyers William Bourdon called the verdict "scandalous". The message of Luxembourg's justice system was for multinationals to "sleep tight", he said. Outside of the court, Deltour was greeted by singing supporters. Over the course of the trial the court heard how Deltour had copied 45,000 pages of documents to which he gained access through a glitch in the company's servers, which had since been fixed. Prosecutors say this data and material supplied by Halet was used in the 'LuxLeaks' revelations of November 2014 by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The prosecutor had requested 18-month prison sentences and fines, far less than the five-year maximum for the charges that range from violating secrecy laws to theft and IT fraud. For Perrin the prosecutor had sought a fine, without specifying how high it should be. The leaked documents showed that companies such as PepsiCo, AIG and Deutsche Bank secured deals from Luxembourg to slash their tax bills. Luxembourg, a small country wedged in between France, Belgium and Germany, says other states have similar arrangements, and has offered to share details of the tax deals. (Reuters)

'LuxLeaks' whistleblowers given suspended prison sentences

data

Data, News on Data, stories on Data, articles on Data, Data stories at Wion, Data news, Data latest news