We'll agree to disagree. . :)

{agree(disagreement)}

No. My understanding of the case at hand is that EU privacy laws do not allow for the release of the data without an EU-issued warrant/subpoena/equivalent.

Their privacy laws are much much stronger than ours. You can't simply do what you want with PII in the EU.

Not at all. If EU law prevents me from turning over data (as it would in this case) then I have exceeded my statutory authority by doing so.

The data physically sits in the EU, so my property rights over that data are subject to EU statutory limitations. Under EU law, I don't have an absolute property right to use and distribute that data as I deem fit, I can only do so in compliance with EU law. As EU law would NOT allow me to release that information, any attempt to do so is a violation of my legal authority, which puts me in violation of the CFAA.

Aha, but if American Airlines wanted to pick a particular 747 and only fly it in ${otherCountry}, and then only hold it to ${otherCountry}'s maintenance standards, that would be legal. The only time the FAA gets jurisdiction over the piece of equipment is when American Airlines decides it wants to fly it either in US airspace or to/from a US-controlled airport.

Let me turn that around on you: Should the Chinese government be able to compel a Chinese company, with operations in the US to turn over data, stored in the US, where doing so would be a violation of US law? If "ChinaCo" was a military contractor and had a bunch of classified material on servers here in the US, should the US just roll over and allow China to "subpoena" the US-based blueprints for the new Stealth weapon? Why or why not?

Those warrants and subpoenas have the value of toilet tissue as soon as you try to execute them off-shore.

And the execution of a search warrant happens "where the thing to be searched is", not "where people who have access to it are".

No. The "terminal" is wholly performed on the local screen. The *connection* crosses an international boundary to a place where the US has no jurisdiction.

Worse, circling back to TFA, the US LEO would be attempting to coerce me into violating the law in the EU, which itself would be a violation of US law (CFAA).

- The UK-based server is a "protected computer" (defined as a computer "used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States") [emphasis added]
- I would be violating section (2) ("intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access", because my authorized access cannot exceed the legal authorization for where the computer is located)
- I would then be obtaining "information from any protected computer;"

So by obeying law enforcement in this matter you have committed a prima facie violation of 18USC1030(a)(2)(c), punishable by up to ten years in prison, as well as committed a criminal act under EU privacy law.

No. Because the United States has no jurisdiction past the borders of its sovereign territory. It can certainly compel me to go there (and then hope that I don't flip them the bird as soon as I'm on another nation's soil), but it has no legal authority to compel any actions that cannot be wholly performed within its jurisdiction.

And in my revised analogy, the residence is controlled and accessible by US entities (the US citizen who owns it).

No, they should not be able to get warrants for either. They should approach law enforcement in the country where they wish to execute a search and gain their cooperation. If there is a legitimate crime, and the search is in compliance with their local laws, they will happily assist.

If an American citizen owns the house in Amsterdam, how is that any different than the American company owning the server in Europe?

As an American citizen, in that revision of the analogy, be could be compelled to allow US investigators to search his Amsterdam residence.

Would you support that? Cuz "hellz no" for my part

I find it odd that you would think that "Randroids" would be in favor of government-mandated monopolies.

It really goes to show how little you know about the people you intend to mock.

People win these sorts of lawsuits all the time.

Bizarro-World is the one people live in when they refuse to even attempt to hold people accountable.

OK, let me rephrase:

"You don't get to complain afterwards without sounding completely disingenuous in doing so."

You will get far more than $1000 in your civil rights lawsuit against Los Federales. It'll be a net win.

Doubly so if, as suggested, you've been recording the entire thing with your glass.