paint-brush
The Provisions Protecting a User's Stored Communicationsby@legalpdf

The Provisions Protecting a User's Stored Communications

by Legal PDF: Tech Court CasesNovember 3rd, 2023
Read on Terminal Reader
Read this story w/o Javascript
tldt arrow

Too Long; Didn't Read

In 2013, Microsoft challenged a warrant by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to turn over emails of a target account stored in Ireland, arguing that a warrant issued under Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act could not compel American companies to produce data stored in servers outside the United States.

People Mentioned

Mention Thumbnail
featured image - The Provisions Protecting a User's Stored Communications
Legal PDF: Tech Court Cases HackerNoon profile picture

Microsoft v. United States (2016) Court Filing, retrieved on July 14, 2016, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 15 of 22.

1. The SCA’s Warrant Provisions

The reader will recall the SCA’s provisions regarding the production of electronic communication content:  In sum, for priority stored communications, “a governmental entity may require the disclosure . . . of the contents of a wire or electronic communication . . . only pursuant to a warrant issued using the rules described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,” except (in certain cases) if notice is given to the user.  18 U.S.C. § 2703(a), (b).


In our view, the most natural reading of this language in the context of the Act suggests a legislative focus on the privacy of stored communications. Warrants under § 2703 must issue under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, whose Rule 41 is undergirded by the Constitution’s protections of citizens’ privacy against unlawful searches and seizures. And more generally, § 2703’s warrant language appears in a statute entitled the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, suggesting privacy as a key concern.


The overall effect is the embodiment of an expectation of privacy in those communications, notwithstanding the role of service providers in their transmission and storage, and the imposition of procedural restrictions on the government’s (and other third party) access to priority stored communications. The circumstances in which the communications have been stored serve as a proxy for the intensity of the user’s privacy interests, dictating the stringency of the procedural protection they receive—in particular whether the Act’s warrant provisions, subpoena provisions, or its § 2703(d) court order provisions govern a disclosure desired by the government.   Accordingly, we think it fair to conclude based on the plain meaning of the text that the privacy of the stored communications is the “object[] of the statute’s solicitude,” and the focus of its provisions.  Morrison, 561 U.S. at 267.



Continue Reading Here.


About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.


This court case No. 15–777 retrieved on September 27, 2023, from cases.justia.com is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction.