評論
打印
Online privacy and law enforcement
網絡隱私與執法
Unwarranted
毫無道理
Why Microsoft is resisting an official demand to hand over data
為什么微軟要抵制官方要求拒不交出數據
LAWYERS for Microsoft and the American government are due to face each other in a court inNew Yorkon July 31st. The two sides have been arguing for months about a warrant, served on Microsoft in December, which requires the company to hand over e-mails stored at data centres inIreland. Microsoft has already challenged the warrant once, but the judge who issued it upheld it.
微軟與美國政府的雙方律師預訂于7月31日在紐約的一個法庭上碰面。雙方對于在12月送達微軟的搜查令的爭論已持續數月，這一搜查令要求微軟交出存儲在愛爾蘭數據中心的電子郵件。微軟曾對此搜查令提出過質疑，但是發出這一搜查令的法官堅持要搜查。
Microsoft has two main objections to the warrant, which law-enforcement officers sought during an investigation into drug-trafficking. First, it says, an American warrant cannot be used to seize evidence held abroad. Second, it claims that the warrant breaks the constitution's Fourth Amendment, which forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures”,by not specifying where the evidence is to be taken from. The warrant refers only to “information…stored at premises owned, maintained, controlled or operated by Microsoft”. The company says the government should get the information by approaching the Irish authorities, using a bilateral treaty.
這一搜查令的執法人員在調查過程中追查毒品交易，而微軟對此搜查令主要有兩項反對。首先，美國的搜查令不能用于沒收保存在國外的證據。其次，微軟聲稱，這一搜查令違反了憲法第四修正案，而這一修正案禁止不指明證據去向的不合理的搜查與扣押。搜查令僅涉及儲存在由微軟所擁有、維護、控制或管理的場所的那些信息。微軟表示，政府應該使用一項雙邊條例，通過愛爾蘭當局得到那些信息。
The government calls this absurd. If Microsoft's argument stands, it believes, criminals could put electronic evidence beyond the long arm of the law simply by claiming to live outside theUnited States.The government also says using treaties to seek information can be slow.
政府稱這很荒謬。它認為，如果微軟的說法站得住腳，犯罪分子就能聲稱居住在美國境外，輕易的把電子證據儲存在法律臂長不及的地方。政府也稱，使用跨國條例來查找信息，進度緩慢。
What is more, it argues, Microsoft is defining a warrant too narrowly. This matters because the authorities need a warrant, which requires no prior notice of seizure, to get hold of unopened e-mails less than six months old. For older or opened e-mails, they need only a subpoena, a notice demanding that certain items be presented in court. The original judge agreed, saying that a warrant under the relevant law—the Stored Communications Act (SCA)—was a “hybrid” of a search warrant and a subpoena. In that case, Microsoft retorts, why did Congress bother to distinguish between a warrant and a subpoena when it drew up the law?
政府認為，更重要的是，微軟對搜查令的定義太過狹隘。這很重要，因為政府需要使搜查令無需事先通知就能沒收證據，以得到六個月內還未閱讀的電子郵件。而要獲取超過6個月的或已閱的電子郵件，他們僅需要發出一張傳票—一個要求將相關條目呈上法庭的通知。原告法官認同說，涉及相關法律—存儲通訊法的搜查令，是一種搜查令和傳票的混合體。在這種情況下，微軟反駁說，在制定法律的時候，為什么國會要如此麻煩的區分搜查令和傳票？
Commerce as well as principle explains Microsoft's nitpicking—and the supporting briefs that other American tech firms have filed in the case. If foreigners fear their data are not safe from Uncle Sam's prying eyes in an American-owned data centre, they may turn to domestic providers, at American companies' expense. Such worries have grown since Edward Snowden's leaks of American spooks' activities last year. The tech firms may also hope a long court battle will prompt Congress to update the SCA. The law dates from 1986, when few imagined the internet's borderless realm.
商業以及原則解釋了微軟的找茬和對于其他美國科技公司牽扯進此案的簡短的擁護聲明。如果國外用戶擔心他們儲存在美國所屬的數據中心的數據，在美國政府的窺探下不安全，他們也許會轉向本國的供應商而讓美國公司付出代價。自從愛德華.斯諾登去年泄露了美國的間諜活動，這樣的擔心就日漸增長。高科技公司也許同樣會希望一場法庭上持久戰將會促使國會改進存儲通訊法案。這一法案可追溯到1986年，那時沒有人會想象到互聯網會發展到無國界的境界。
