So What, Who Cares (vol 1, issue 68) Why you should care what happens to email stored in Ireland
Hello! A few notes:
-- I remain, as always, blown away by my good fortune in having readers who are generous with their useful and witty feedback. Thank you to everyone who has written me with recommendations, YouTube links and downloads of holiday music. I will feature them in a round-up next week. If there are any other holiday carols or holiday songs (it was pointed out to me that it's important to differentiate between the two) you'd like to nominate for best of/worst of, please make your case via email or Twitter.
-- Speaking of next week: So What, Who Cares will be posted on Monday and Tuesday evenings, then I'll be taking a long winter's nap/short holiday break until Monday, January 5, 2015.
*
The Sony hack has gotten a lot of ink, but there's another tech news story that could have greater financial imapct on America in the long run, because the outcome could make U.S. businesses incredibly unattractive overseas.
In April 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice served Microsoft with a warrant for an Irish customer's email and address book, and Microsoft had basically said, "No -- you're asking for data from an Irish subsidiary company, so you'll need to negotiate with the Irish government and the EU. Our Irish subsidiary is obligated to follow the data protection laws of its geographic location." Since Microsoft refused to honor the warrant, the case went to the U.S. district court, and in July, U.S. district judge Loretta Preska ordered Microsoft to hand over the data, arguing that the case hinges on a question of which entity controls the information, not where the information happens to be stored.
In September, Microsoft was held in contempt of court -- at its own request -- so it could take the case to the Supreme Court. The question it wants to settle: To whom does cloud data belong -- a user who is the citizen of one country or the company that's based in another? According to Microsoft:
The Government puts at risk the fundamental privacy rights Americans have valued since the founding of the postal service. This is because it argues that, unlike your letters in the mail, emails you store in the cloud cease to belong exclusively to you. Instead, according to the Government, your emails become the business records of a cloud provider. Because business records have a lower level of legal protection, the Government claims it can use a different and broader legal authority to reach emails stored anywhere in the world.
So what? This case could decide whether or not one simple idea -- U.S. law can apply anywhere in the world so long as a U.S. technology company has control over foreign data -- is legally valid. If so, expect the European Union to react swiftly: European authorities have repeatedly said that it doesn't matter where a EU-based company's parent is headquartered; any subsidiary must abide by European law. And the EU is set to overhaul its data privacy laws next year; as of now, most proposals seek to prevent a European subsidiary of a parent company from handing over data to a third country for law enforcement or intelligence purposes
Who cares? The two big players with the most to lose are tech companies and the companies that invest in tech companies.
Cloud uptake has been slower than expected for three big reasons, two of which link right back to the government. The first concern is that the services themselves are not as secure as they should be. The second concern is over intelligence agencies snooping on citizens by romping merrily through cloud services -- a concern that is entirely legitimate. The final concern is that U.S. government policies will make doing international business less attractive for reasons ranging from the cultural to the financial.
If the Supreme Court finds for the Department of Justice, then it's effectively signing off on the idea that U.S. law overrides any other law in any other country. This would effectively mean that any subsidiary of a U.S. company operating in any non-U.S. country would not be subject to the laws of that country.
Does that idea make U.S. companies more or less attractive to foreign markets? There's a reason Apple, Verizon and Amazon are backing Microsoft in this fight. And so are Twitter, eBay, the ACLU and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So are Cisco, HP and AT&T. And expect some lobbying from the financial industry once people have run the numbers and figured out the cost of the "My laws override your laws" policy on revenue potential in foreign markets.
*
Black Friday is not nearly the bargain you might think it is: Or so concludes the New York Times, coming to a conclusion that the Wall Street Journal has been reporting for years. The notion that Black Friday is a day when retailers radically slash prices? NOPE. The truth is that retailers typically work backward: They figure out the rock-bottom price at which they can still make a profit on an item, then work out a tiered pricing strategy. So that festive plaid fleece-lined jacket that seems to be in the middle of the Dream of the Nineties? Even if you pick it up at $50.40 (which is what it's going for now), it's still profitable for the Gap. They just made more money on the people who paid $168 for it.
So what? The notion of Black Friday sales is more hype than reality. And what's more -- it's not even the day of the year with the deepest discounts. According to Adobe, which analyzed one trillion visits to 4,500 retailing websites over six years, the deepest discounting happens on the Monday before Thanksgiving. Let the land rush to create the next big shopping day begin (vol 1, issue 55)!
Who cares? You should. It's your money, after all. It's helpful to know how retailers mash your buttons -- and when you should wait for a sale that doesn't happen at midnight right after you've had a big meal.
*
Your holiday pop-culture note of the day: The Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode "Santa Claus Vs. The Martians" isn't really my favorite MST3K episode -- that would be Cave Dwellers -- but good old episode 321 did give us the immortal ditty "Let's Have a Patrick Swayze Christmas." Please enjoy the original clip or this lovely choral rendition with surprise critic at the end.
Also in the spirit of irreverent holiday treats, please enjoy "Raging Rudolph," perhaps the bloodiest sketch ever committed to Claymation.
*
Did you miss an issue of So What, Who Cares? The archive is here.
As always, I welcome your feedback and suggestions via email or Twitter. Always let me know what you think about So What, Who Cares? If you really like it, tell a friend to subscribe.