Bloomberg Law: Privacy & Data Security brings you single-source access to the expertise of Bloomberg Law’s privacy and data security editorial team, contributing practitioners,...
July 20 — Foreign countries seeking data for law enforcement purposes rely on an outdated and cumbersome system designed for the analog age, but a recent proposal may update the process for the digital era, academics recently told Bloomberg BNA.
A recent proposal by the U.S. Department of Justice would help alleviate hurdles in the process by making changes to the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the Wiretap Act, and the Pen/Trap Statute, the DOJ said in a July 15 statement. The proposal, if it became law, is seen as a necessary step to a bilateral law enforcement cross-border data sharing agreement between the U.K. and the U.S, the DOJ said. (15 PVLR 433, 2/29/16).
Under the DOJ proposal, foreign governments with a valid warrant would only be allowed access to data on foreign citizens who aren't residing in the U.S. Also, the U.S. Attorney General would have to “certify to Congress that foreign partners have met obligations and commitments designed to protect privacy and civil liberties.”
The proposal “lifts the blocking statute that prohibits U.S.-based providers from turning over the content of communications (i.e. e-mails) to foreign governments, even when they are investigating their own citizens,” Jennifer Daskal, assistant professor of law at American University Washington College of Law, told Bloomberg BNA.
The proposal “is an important step forward—one that will minimize the negative incentives in favor of data localization mandates, unilateral assertions of jurisdiction, and use of malware and other surreptitious means of accessing sought after data,” she said.
However, not all are happy with every aspect of the DOJ proposal. Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the non-profit advocacy group Center for Democracy & Technology in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA that the proposal “has some significant problems,” such as allowing foreign countries to engage in wiretapping in the U.S. This would be a “huge expansion in mass surveillance,” he said.
Unlike other treaties, the proposal essentially eliminates Congress' ability to put a check on the executive branch by allowing the Attorney General to approve the agreements, he said.
The issue of cross-border data sharing for law enforcement purposes was highlighted by the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's decision in the Microsoft-Ireland e-mail case (15 PVLR 1465, 7/18/16).
Microsoft Corp. squabbled with the U.S. over the past three years to quash the warrant that sought the release of the e-mails allegedly related to a drug prosecution. In December 2013, a New York magistrate judge issued a search warrant for information associated with a specific e-mail account controlled and operated by Microsoft. The company produced the non-content information that was stored on U.S. servers, but declined to provide any data that was stored in its Dublin data center. After the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York upheld the warrant in 2014 (13 PVLR 1416, 8/11/14), Microsoft appealed the ruling (14 PVLR 1678, 9/14/15) and ultimately won the case.
The Second Circuit ruled that the SCA doesn't “authorize courts to issue and enforce against U.S.-based service providers warrants for the seizure of customer e-mail content that is stored exclusively on foreign servers.” It concluded that “Congress did not intend the SCA's warrant provisions to apply extraterritorially.” Instead, the U.S. would have to rely on other methods outside of the SCA to obtain the data.
Although the DOJ proposal doesn't address warrants to access U.S. citizens' data stored on foreign servers, the agency still called for legislation to address “the significant public safety implications of the decision.”
Andrew K. Woods, assistant professor of law at the University of Kentucky College of Law, told Bloomberg BNA that the case backs up the notion that “the test for jurisdiction over data is the location of the data center,” and that it is “precisely the wrong message to send to countries that are trying to figure out how to assert their sovereignty over the internet.”
However, Nojeim said that if the court didn't reach this decision, “you could bet your bottom dollar” that other “governments would start beating down the doors of U.S. providers to reach content stored in the U.S.”
One way for the U.S. to obtain the data that the Microsoft case excluded is through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) process.
MLAT allows a law enforcement agency from one country to ask a law enforcement agency in a foreign country for private data from a citizen of the foreign country for use in a criminal investigation.
The DOJ's proposal is an attempt to work around the MLAT system that is both inefficient and cumbersome for cross-border law enforcement requests, the academics said.
Daskal said that the system is “slow and inefficient,” and it may “take an average of ten months for foreign governments to access data located in the U.S.”
Woods said that the U.K.-U.S. bilateral agreement is the reason behind the DOJ proposal. “The reason countries must go through the MLAT process to get access to data held by U.S. companies is because the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) effectively acts as a blocking statute—barring firms from cooperating with foreign law enforcement,” even when they have good reasons to get the data, he said.
The DOJ proposal “would remove the blocking features, only with regard to serious crimes, and only for countries that enter into an agreement with the U.S.,” Woods said.
The countries that enter into an agreement with the U.S. must respect “the rule of law, due process and human rights” to be able to request data directly from U.S. companies,” Woods said.
However, Nojeim said that “often times foreign governments don't have the same factual and probable cause” tests as the U.S., which may be a “step backwards for human rights.” Data may be released to countries that have a “poor human rights record,” without a “sufficient factual basis for reaching evidence of a purported crime,” he said.
The DOJ proposal doesn't directly call for reform to the MLAT system. However, the agency said that updates to the MLAT system “must remain a priority.”
Daskal said that the DOJ proposal doesn't allow for foreign governments to access U.S. citizens' data and must rely on the “MLAT system—and ultimately obtain a U.S. warrant based on a U.S. standard of probably cause.”
More congressional action is needed, Daskal said. “Congress should reform the relevant statutes to ensure U.S. law enforcement can directly compel the production of U.S. persons' data, wherever located and pursuant to lawful process, if necessary to the investigation of criminal activity,” she said.
Nojeim agreed there is a need for MLAT reform. “Right now the MLAT process works too slowly and should be updated,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel R. Stoller in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
The Department of Justice's proposal is available at http://www.netcaucus.org/wp-content/uploads/2016-7-15-US-UK-Legislative-Proposal-to-Hill.pdf.
Copyright © 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)