Justices to Decide on Forcing Technology Firms to Provide Data Held Abroad<br />In dissent, Judge José A. Cabranes wrote that the panel’s decision had restricted an investigative tool used<br />thousands of times a year while failing to “serve any serious, legitimate, or substantial privacy interest.”<br />In urging the Supreme Court to hear the case, the Justice Department said nothing should turn on Microsoft’s business decision to store data abroad<br />that it “can access domestically with the click of a computer mouse.” The panel’s ruling, the department’s brief said, “is causing immediate, grave, and ongoing harm to public safety, national security, and the enforcement of our laws.”<br />“Hundreds if not thousands of investigations of crimes — ranging from terrorism, to child pornography, to fraud<br />— are being or will be hampered by the government’s inability to obtain electronic evidence,” the brief said.<br />“Though merchants may desire lower fees, those fees are necessary to maintaining cardholder satisfaction — and if a particular merchant finds<br />that the cost of Amex fees outweighs the benefit it gains by accepting Amex cards, then the merchant can choose to not accept Amex cards<br />“And the growing privacy concerns of customers around the world mean<br />that granting U. S. law-enforcement agencies that broad authority would hamstring U. S. companies’ ability to compete in the multibillion-dollar cloud computing industry.”<br />The case is part of the broader clash between the technology industry and the federal government in the digital age.<br />The Second Circuit disagreed, ruling that Judge Garaufis had unduly focused on merchants’ interests “while discounting the interests of cardholders.”<br />“This approach does not advance overall consumer satisfaction,” Judge Richard C. Wesley wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel.
