Only if those European Microsoft customers broke a US law and used Microsoft to house the data about such criminal activity on their servers. The US still needed a warrant in this case to obtain the data in question. It would take a US court to tell Microsoft to turn over data on a foreign citizen and there would have to be cause to do that. So, it is likely that the only European Microsoft customers that would be effected are those that happen to break US laws.

But the criminal in question didn't visit Ireland and leave his data there. Microsoft didn't visit Ireland, either, but it did send the data there. Also, this is not tangible personal property. It is a bunch of electrons.

As for the H-1B worker, that is a strawman argument and has nothing to do with this. Here is a concrete example of what is going on here. I steal a painting in the US and send it via FedEx to Amerstam where it sits in FedEx's hangar waiting to be picked up. The feds arrest me and ask FedEx to send the painting back for evidence. Should FedEx say no, because it is now in their possession in a foreign country? Before you answer, the courts have already answered it and said yes, FedEx would need to return it as long as it is still in their possession.

Or, lets say two child pornographers both store the pictures they have taken in the US (so US law is broken) on Google's servers and one of the pornographers pictures happen to reside on a server under Google's control in Ireland and the other on a server under Google's control in the US. Is guy who had the luck of his data being routed to Ireland off scott free while the other guy goes to jail, when both of these accounts and servers are under Google's control? While the courts haven't answered this question, they have done so with banking and found that US banks must still turn over seized assets of US bank holders even if those assets are now held in foreign countries. Most other countries also have the same laws, too.

So, the question really is whether or not a criminal should be able to use a US company to hide it's data just because the US company has a server farm somewhere other than the US?

Maybe the US should suspend all Microsoft contracts it has while Microsoft refuses to comply with the court order.

Actually, the judge lifted the freeze on the court order, so Microsoft is in fact defying it. Microsoft states they plan to appeal, but until they do appeal, they are still defying it.

They already can and have been doing so for years. If Microsoft wins, there will quickly be treatise signed with most countries allowing law enforcement to access data of their citizens suspected of criminal activity, just like happened with banking.

And yet Microsoft has no problem trying to apply US patent and copyright laws against foreign companies. The reality here is that if I was the criminal in question and stored the data on my personal computer in Ireland, the US would ask the Irish to sieze the physical computer and turn it over and they would. However, Microsoft isn't the criminal, they are just the email provider who happens to be storing emails related to the criminal activity and happens to store it in Ireland. So, the authroities have issued a warrant to Microsoft for that data.

Now, if the US was trying to sieze Microsoft's servers in Ireland, that would be different. They are only asking for the emails of a person suspected of a US crime. When this started, it wasn't even known they were stored in Ireland. Microsoft brought that up because they thought that was the only way to keep from turning over a customer's emails.

I would suspect that if Microsoft prevails, it won't be for long as we will see new laws about data laundering just like happened with money laundering through foreign banks.

Microsoft is fighting a warrant about turning over a customer's emails in a criminal case. Are you really arguing because the electrons are sitting on an SSD in Ireland, the criminal should go free, even though Microsoft has full control over those electrons? The individual didn't instruct Microsoft to store the data there, Microsoft did it of its own volition.

No, it won't. Europeans will still have the same protections they do under their laws. However, US citizens committing a crime in the US won't be able to store their data on foreign servers of American companies and have it safe from authorities. In otherwords, if a US crime is committed, it doesn't matter where the US company hosts its server farm, it is still under the control of that company and subject to the authorities.

If Microsoft wins this challenge, then there will be no server farms in the US because any that were overseas would be exempt from US authorities. Just think of something as mundane as tax avoidance. The IRS comes in and asks to see your companies data, but you don't have to give it to them because it is in a different country? Or let's say some government agency stores its data in Canada. Now it is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act?

The reality here is that if Microsoft wins, there will no longer be a tech industry in the US because what is left will move overseas to avoid US laws.

This case is about a search warrant for a suspect's email that happens to be hosted on a server that Microsoft owns in Ireland. Even if Microsoft has to comply with the law, it won't have the impact you are implying.

Should a bank be publicly orederd to break laws in other countries, regardles of where it is based? That has already been answered in the affirmative. Banks are held to the laws of the country they are chartered in. Why should internet companies be different? Microsoft has no problem trying to hold foreign companies liable for US patent infringement, even if their local patent laws are different. Companies can't have it both ways. If you are a US company, you can't cry foul when US laws work against you but turn around a use US laws only when they are in your favor.

That is true, but it's not about an American, but an American's data that is in question. You can only extridte people. If an American only needs to store their data in a foreign country to keep from complying with a warrant, then every criminal organization will do that. What the court is saying is that jurisdiction follows whoever has control over the data, which in this case is Microsoft, but could just as easily be drug cartel or terrorist group.

Actually, this same scenario happened with the banking industry and what the judge is proposing actually follows the international law and treaties that came out of it. In short, it doesn't matter where the assets are stored as to who has jurisdiction, but as to who has control over them. For instance if the IRA had deposits in Irish Allied Bank, but the cash was stored in the US, then the Irish Government could still freeze the account. So, if the data is stored somewhere else, but the company is headquartered in their land, why not the same thing?

That would be Noah's woodcrafting tools. By the time Jesus came around, nobody was quite sure what a cubit was anymore.

But what you are drawing is only a representation of a line on a plane, not the actual line on a plane. If all of these 2-dimensional sheets were stacked on top of each other, would they still be 2D? If not, then technically, they aren't 2D to begin with. You would think that scientists would be more accurate with their articulation of complex concepts.

To be fair, Europe is a continent while the United States is a country. A more accurate comparison would be North America versus Europe, which would be 742M to 565M. Of course the continent of Europe includes Russia, which most people don't include. Take out Russia and the two populations are very closely matched. If you want to compare by country, then the US still is many times larger than most European countries.