I feel concern about Canadian courts using Microsoft teams, where I would assume everything is recorded and who has access? If I need the court system I'm automatically roped into a EULA I would not normally agree to, and where is the data kept and who has access to it?
This is why some companies have a separate org for eu data where no us citizen has access. the data is in the eu and when the company is told to provide it the eu employees whe are the only ones with the passwords to get it are legally required to refuse. The company may be required to fire those employees - but that is all they can do, and eu employee protection laws will jump in the middle. the next step is an international diplomatic issuse that I refuse to speculate on.
> the eu employees whe are the only ones with the passwords to get it are legally required to refuse
Can EU ever be sure Microsoft's mothership didn't backdoor the systems in use by the EU child-org, to bypass the local crew completely, just in case? Short of reimplementing everything in parallel from scratch, I doubt headquarters can really be completely locked out and be unable to get overseas data if they are hard pressed to do so by USG.
> Ultimately, the only likely way to avoid the risk of U.S. legal requests superseding Canadian or other international law is not to use the products of US-based organizations or to keep them disconnected entirely from the Internet.
Microsoft’s statement wasn’t about Canada specifically - indeed, it was to French politicians about France specifically, but in a way that the Canadian author of the post was (quite correctly) able to generalize to Canada for the benefit of his Canadian audience.
Canada may very well have been compromised in the way you mean, but this statement by Microsoft is no more and no less evidence of that than of other countries being compromised in that way.
I don't understand this idea that Microsoft would follow US law in this case, since doing so would be espionage, and would lead to such long prison sentences for those who did it.
Obviously we've ended the death penalty for all crimes, but I think the police will shoot fleeing people who have participated in things like this.
Being part of an organization that says they will do this is also obviously grounds for being deported.
Don't think about participating in anything like this unless you have diplomatic immunity, because European states have no reason to go easy on someone who does this.
Alas, European states will generally not follow the letter of their law if it conflicts with the spirit of obeisance to the country that has all of the material power over their energy availability and software ecosystem, and with good reason.
Here in Sweden I can assure you that the government won't be able to do anything about prosecutions of this sort. They don't have the legal powers to intervene.
We are also rather near Russia, and we have our laws for a reason. We're not going to apply anything less just because our government wants us to.
> Here in Sweden I can assure you that the government won't be able to do anything about prosecutions of this sort.
Tell this to Julian Assange, or to Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, and Carl Lundström. Though these are examples of government pressure in the opposite direction, they are still examples of how despite having no legal powers to intervene there is plenty of de-facto power being wielded by the U.S. over the Swedish justice system.
All that is Interpol-type police co-operation stuff, not interference with our prosecution of spies.
Not having this of filth allowing third parties access to our data is foundational and I don't see how any interference with it could be justified. Historically you shot people like this.
I feel concern about Canadian courts using Microsoft teams, where I would assume everything is recorded and who has access? If I need the court system I'm automatically roped into a EULA I would not normally agree to, and where is the data kept and who has access to it?
This is why some companies have a separate org for eu data where no us citizen has access. the data is in the eu and when the company is told to provide it the eu employees whe are the only ones with the passwords to get it are legally required to refuse. The company may be required to fire those employees - but that is all they can do, and eu employee protection laws will jump in the middle. the next step is an international diplomatic issuse that I refuse to speculate on.
Not working anymore under the CLOUD Act.
> the eu employees whe are the only ones with the passwords to get it are legally required to refuse
Can EU ever be sure Microsoft's mothership didn't backdoor the systems in use by the EU child-org, to bypass the local crew completely, just in case? Short of reimplementing everything in parallel from scratch, I doubt headquarters can really be completely locked out and be unable to get overseas data if they are hard pressed to do so by USG.
No, but they can make that a crime and cost microsoft a lot if it discovered. And good rewards so whistleblowers are likely to come forward
[flagged]
> Ultimately, the only likely way to avoid the risk of U.S. legal requests superseding Canadian or other international law is not to use the products of US-based organizations or to keep them disconnected entirely from the Internet.
The true title is,
Microsft, says US law takes precidence over Canadian law.
Microsoft says eh?, it's quite litteraly a declaration of war via lawfare, with the unspoken part bieng that Canada has already been compromised.
Just think how this is going down EVERYWHERE else in the world
Microsoft’s statement wasn’t about Canada specifically - indeed, it was to French politicians about France specifically, but in a way that the Canadian author of the post was (quite correctly) able to generalize to Canada for the benefit of his Canadian audience.
Canada may very well have been compromised in the way you mean, but this statement by Microsoft is no more and no less evidence of that than of other countries being compromised in that way.
I don't understand this idea that Microsoft would follow US law in this case, since doing so would be espionage, and would lead to such long prison sentences for those who did it.
Obviously we've ended the death penalty for all crimes, but I think the police will shoot fleeing people who have participated in things like this.
Being part of an organization that says they will do this is also obviously grounds for being deported.
Don't think about participating in anything like this unless you have diplomatic immunity, because European states have no reason to go easy on someone who does this.
Alas, European states will generally not follow the letter of their law if it conflicts with the spirit of obeisance to the country that has all of the material power over their energy availability and software ecosystem, and with good reason.
Here in Sweden I can assure you that the government won't be able to do anything about prosecutions of this sort. They don't have the legal powers to intervene.
We are also rather near Russia, and we have our laws for a reason. We're not going to apply anything less just because our government wants us to.
> Here in Sweden I can assure you that the government won't be able to do anything about prosecutions of this sort.
Tell this to Julian Assange, or to Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, and Carl Lundström. Though these are examples of government pressure in the opposite direction, they are still examples of how despite having no legal powers to intervene there is plenty of de-facto power being wielded by the U.S. over the Swedish justice system.
All that is Interpol-type police co-operation stuff, not interference with our prosecution of spies.
Not having this of filth allowing third parties access to our data is foundational and I don't see how any interference with it could be justified. Historically you shot people like this.