'Today' considers data retention and IMP

[Florian Weimer]

* Ian G. Batten:

> On Sat, January 10, 2009 10:32, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Ian Batten:
>>
>>
>>> I'm sure that CompanyX (UK) Ltd would be pleased to help.  It's just
>>> unfortunate that the data is held by CompanyX (US) Inc.
>>
>> CompanyX's UK competitors might sue CompanyX (UK) because CompanyX
>> gains an unfair competitive edge using this trick (even if it is, in
>> itself, legal, which I strongly doubt).

> I don't see why it shouldn't be legal.  If I buy a book from Amazon US, I
> don't have any legal redress against Amazon UK.   If Amazon US offer a
> book for sale, and (critically) Amazon UK don't, I can't drag Amazon UK
> into a libel action.

Initially, it's more interesting if you can serve court documents for
Amazon US to their UK subsidiary.  And if you prevail in court and are
awarded damages, if you can collect them from the UK subsidiary.

> I don't know the innards of Google's mail service, but I'd be
> perfectly willing to believe that the TCP connection to gmail.com
> from my house would go straight to the LINX and thence to the US.

At least the TCP connection for the sign-in is likely terminated
locally.

> Now Google UK may well wish to respond to requests from law
> enforcement that ignore this distinction, because they're good
> citizens.  But from an enforcement perspective, if the data isn't
> within the UK police's jurisdiction, what can they do to _force_ its
> production?

They can seize Google potentially related equipment in the UK for
investigative purposes.  Of course, if Google does not cooperate, it
might pick the wrong equipment.

Isn't this what you would expect the police to do if they faced an
uncooperative domestic company?

> And `unfair competition' usually only figures in regulated, monopoly
> or other special market cases.  Unless you believe that a car
> manufacturer with a plant in the UK can sue people who build cars in
> Poland.

If the working conditions were despicable over there, why not?  It's
not about the business per se, but about specific vioaltions which are
enabled by opting out of local jurisdiction.