Your data at risk: Why Microsoft's fight against dangerous global search warrants matters

Microsoft, Google, Apple and other tech companies in the US have been fighting what looks like an uphill battle, ever since we heard about the NSA’s widespread and indiscriminate Internet surveillance.   American technology companies have been variously described as victims like every other Internet user and also of colluding with the government to put these taps in place. Companies have denied the latter, and a recent ruling by US Magistrate Judge James Francis might have finally pushed them over the edge in the fight.   Earlier this year, the Manhattan magistrate judge **ruled that the government could obtain data stored in the cloud** in servers outside the US. In that case, Microsoft was forced to comply with a search warrant for a user’s email account stored in Ireland. This despite the fact that the US courts have no jurisdiction over data stored in Ireland or indeed any other country.   The government maintains that in Microsoft’s case the warrant served as a way for the company to search within its database and reveal the relevant results. But it sets a dangerous precedent, that could allow US law enforcement unfettered access to all cloud data stored anywhere in the world.   Naturally, tech companies, especially those banking heavily on cloud-based infrastructure have seen cause for alarm. As can be imagined, such sharing of user data to the US law enforcement may not be in line with the local law where the server is located. So companies are wary of having to break the law, to help maintain the law. It puts them in a precarious position, in terms of the public opinion and in the eyes of the law too.   By doing this, the US is effectively setting a precedent for other nations. They could legitimately obtain user data stored in US cloud servers by forcing companies to do the same for them. And that would be in contravention to US law.   Google has been taking steps too, to ensure that data remains as secure as possible. **The company has rolled out End-to-End** an encryption tool that would act as a Chrome add-on to make sure your browsing session within G0ogle’s servers is not even accessible by the company, let alone outside eyes.   Google has also backed ‘ **Reset the Net** ’ along with a bunch of popular Websites, an initiative hopes to bring more awareness about privacy software and implications of the current surveillance mechanism.   However, the Manhattan ruling comes as Francis interpreted the meaning of the word snooping differently than most of us. He believed, according to this report from GigaOM, “a search occurs when information from or about the data is exposed to possible human observation, such as when it appears on a screen, rather than when it is copied by the hard drive or processed by the computer.” That naturally increases the scope of all inquiries and law enforcement could easily force companies to divulge information under the guise of it not being searched under Francis’ ruling.Besides Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Verizon and AT&T have joined the appeal against the Manhattan ruling. Apple in particular could be forced to divulge iPhone user data thanks to its iCloud reliance. While the likes of Cisco, Verizon and AT&T who have deep interest in enterprise-level cloud storage are also wary of how this will impact their global business.   On the face of it, it looks like a bunch of companies fighting the government for less interference. It happens all the time around the world, but the Manhattan ruling’s dangerous global search warrants mean your data may not be safe even if it is stored outside the US. **In the wake of Edward Snowden's revelations** , many governments urged companies to cut the server infrastructure reliance on the US, and set up centres on foreign soil.   This ruling blunts that argument and makes it absolutely meaningless. So it doesn’t matter if **Google or Facebook or Microsoft move servers to India** , the US can still get its hands on it, and not even call it a search, if Francis’ interpretation is upheld.