That is, non-toxic transfection and organelle targeting of a combination "marker & delivery vehicle" into live cells, confirmed by both optical and electron imaging. Special nanodiamonds in this case.
(Full disclosure: It was me.)
How is this different from what the Stasi did?
There is a quote from a former Stasi guy (East-German secret police) regarding the Snowden leaks of NSA capabilities: "We could only have dreamed of having such powers."
.the "How would you feel if somebody did it to you?" test. . .
Excellent test, to propose a citizen consider being on the other end of some legal action or law, as a way to consider whether it is reasonable.
I daresay acceptance of the described international-legal concept would be the end of the concept of Trade Secrets.
It would also be a boon to any company with "favored" status in their home nation.
Just claim the data was lost due to a "hard drive crash." I mean, it worked for the IRS, right?
It worked for the CIA video recordings of interrogations.
It worked for the CHP & KCSO after they confiscated, w/o warrant, the two cell phones which had video of the deadly police beating. The phones were later returned, sans video.
And so on. . .
If this were not the case then the Tobacco and Asbestos companies could have just said "all those meeting minutes and research records are stored in our warehouse in mexico so ha ha, you all lose." Any company or person, on any issue, could just mail the evidence out of state or out of country and get off scott free.
Interesting point. There is one subtle difference to consider.
The "moving physical documents off-shore" approach would be conceivable if not for the fact that such documents, etc. were generated by a US-based Corp., by people acting as representatives of the Corp., thus subject to US laws. IANAL, but I think this kind of maneuver would be obstruction of justice, contempt, or something similar to "destruction of evidence."
In the online case here, the issue is email caching. It does really make sense to cache users' "cloud" data in close physical proximity to said users. That said, one can easily imagine MS using this excuse as a shield to deliberately hide documents they'd like kept secret. Probably not the case here, but extend this ruling to company-internal documents, and you'll spot the trick that US DOJ is trying to prevent.
Kind of like how many Corps. have a "delete any email over two weeks old to 'save storage space'." If you delete a category of data, on a regular schedule, and before any subpoena, then the trick will work. But good luck preserving any sort of corporate memory...
Government, police, etc will always be corrupt. Always. People are people. The only defense is to give them just barely enough resources to do their job, with no excess or space for overreach. It's all about taxes. .
Close, but wrong. It's all about the purse-strings.
Elected leaders, held to account, will reign in organizational misbehavior by tightening the purse-strings (cutting their budget).
Government, like many things, is a necessary evil. Flat-out saying that "paying taxes is wrong!" solves nothing. Because, you see, there will always be someone in charge.
Hold them to account, and they will hold departments, etc. within their purview to account.
If you want zero taxes, go to Somalia.
Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming