US court sides with Microsoft on overseas emails

By Barry Eitel

SAN FRANCISCO (AA) – A divided federal appeals court ruled Tuesday not to rehear a case regarding whether the U.S. government could access customer data stored on Microsoft servers in Ireland.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City handed Microsoft and Internet privacy advocates a victory when it ruled 4-4 to let stand a decision last summer that said the Department of Justice cannot demand data from servers overseas.

The July 14 ruling was hailed as a landmark judgement against what some saw as government overreach.

The case was sparked by a narcotics case in 2013 when law enforcement demanded emails that were stored on Microsoft servers in Dublin. The government said the 1986 Stored Communications Act gave it the ability to demand such data from an American company.

“We recognize at the same time that in many ways the [Stored Communications Act] has been left behind by technology,” judge Susan L. Carney wrote in her statement supporting the original ruling. “It is overdue for a congressional revision that would continue to protect privacy but would more effectively balance concerns of international comity with law enforcement needs and service provider obligations in the global context in which this case arose.”

The equally divided ruling means the former judgement stands, but the Justice Department may decide to take the case to the Supreme Court.

“We are reviewing the decision and its multiple dissenting opinions and considering our options,” Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said in a statement.

Microsoft earned the support of many technology companies, including Amazon, Verizon and Apple, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union.

"We welcome today’s decision," Microsoft Chief Legal Officer Brad Smith said in a statement. "We need Congress to modernize the law both to keep people safe and ensure that governments everywhere respect each other’s borders. This decision puts the focus where it belongs, on Congress passing a law for the future rather than litigation about an outdated statute from the past.”