"it will hamper our investigation"
Well boo hoo. We have checks and balances and due process for a reason. It isn't about catching the bad guy at all costs.
Borders are in place to hamper agents. That is their whole purpose.
Crossing borders without permission is provoking conflict and war.
Crossing borders traditionally requires negotiation. This is the way in any governance framework.
A world without any respected borders is a world in which there is no escalation, protection and where government is melting down. An agency that is tasked with protecting the borders of the law should understand that. If anyone struggles just think how it feels (for the sake of the argument here it is irrelevant whether true or not) to be at the receiving end of Russian cyber bullying interfering with the election.
Every time the government does this, they have to understand that the flood gates open for other governments to do this. Next thing you know, China will request data on Americans
Please write an email, or better yet call, your state and federal representatives/assembly people and senators if you care about this. There is an honest belief, on the Hill, that Americans don't care about this.
There's an honest belief, off the hill, that Americans can't actually change a damn thing about our political system, whether through activism or calling our state and federal representatives or voting or basically anything. That we can't control a damn thing that happens on the state or federal scope.
Yeah the five separate occasions I've reached out to my representatives I've received 4 form style responses and one that was never responded to at all.
> And it says that responding to the warrant would not circumvent the privacy of users, because they have no way to know, or control, where their data is stored.
So if they add an option somewhere in the settings to allow users to pick where their data is stored this becomes invalid?
Wouldn't it be great if all these web apps running on AWS, Azure, etc., would run instances in different regions and let the user choose which instance they want to make use of (and, thus, where their data is stored)?
That's not really an analogous situation. The analogous situation would be another country asking a company located and incorporated in that other country for a copy of an electronic document that is under the control of that company, which they have stored on a server in the US. That company has remote access to the server and can copy/move the document without needing the cooperation or even awareness of anyone in the US.
I doubt that the US would object to the other country's government requiring the company to make a copy of the document and giving it to that government.
It scares me to think that the US will most likely have a president that not only doesn't understand technology but has proven that she cannot seem to appoint the right expertise to make up for that short coming.
> “This effect is already harming important investigations, and it has potentially far-reaching consequences.”
So do some of the amendments to the Bill of Rights. Should we get rid of that too?
Edit: wow, this is being downvoted into oblivion. In the time it took me to write my comment, it went from the first page to the second. Other than DoJ operatives, I don't know who would downvote this, as it is important to our industry.
" And it (DOJ) says that responding to the warrant would not circumvent the privacy of users, because they have no way to know, or control, where their data is stored"
