Does the US have juristriction over the whole world?

[Ian Mason]

On 27 Nov 2011, at 21:30, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Ian Mason:
>
>> The difference between UK and US approaches is that UK law only
>> applies extraterritorially to UK subjects or to persons "owing a duty
>> to the crown".
>
> Compelling a UK subsidiary of a foreign company to produce evidence
> for use in a UK court does not look very extraterritorial to me.
> Globalization cuts both ways, there are increased opportunities and
> responsibilities.
>
> I think you actually want this because otherwise, UK companies with
> local ownership are at a competitive disadvantage.
>

I'm taking the, sometime unusual, tactic of speaking only of what I  
know, which specifically was the spying reference where I know that  
this approach to extra-territoriality exists.

Now I speculate - I don't think the UK courts would think they were  
competent to order disclosure of information about a third party,  
incidentally held on behalf of another third party by the (for  
arguments sake) Australian subsidiary of a British Company. This is a  
direct analogy to the claim MS are making about holding data 'in the  
cloud' for an Australian company.

The case you suggest, of a foreign company domiciled in the UK is very  
different. I don't think the courts would hesitate for a moment to  
order disclosure from them - as long as there was a basic case for  
disclosure.

Ian