Document Type : Article
Author
Associate Prof., University of Payame Noor, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Microsoft Corporation has access to the emails of its users and their contents from the United States territory. However, this information is stored and held in a cross-border data center that is considered to be alien to the Microsoft Corporation and the territory where the center of its activity is located. Access of the United States is interference in internal affairs of the Irish government, which is location of the Microsoft data center. But location of the Microsoft and its ability to access it from the territory of the United States to the information stored by its users, even in cross-border is important and obtaining criminal jurisdiction for United States Courts. Whereas United States criminal law is effective and enforceable on the territory. Accordingly, the approach of the United States courts is not justifiable on the basis of territorial rules for access to cross-border stored data. The research question is, what is the mechanism of cybercriminal investigation in the cross-border data center and its challenges? Findings of the research show that approve of a treaty about legal cooperation in criminal investigations and adherence to its provisions are the only mechanism for access to the cross-border data center, whose implementation is facing serious challenges.
Keywords
1. فارسی
الف) مقالات
1. بهره‌مند، حمید (1396)، «چالش‌های مقررات تعدد جرم در جرائم سایبری»، مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، ش 100، صص 53-66.
2. پورقهرمانی، بابک (1396)، «مطالعۀ تطبیقی سازوکارهای حمایت از بزه‌دیدگان جرائم رایانه‌ای در حقوق کیفری ایران و اسناد بین‌المللی با تأکید بر کنوانسیون بوداپست»، پژوهشنامۀ حقوق کیفری، ش 15، صص 1-36.
3. حبیبی، همایون؛ شاملو، سوده (1392)، «نقش دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در توسعۀ حقوق بین‌الملل»، فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق عمومی، ش 41، صص 71-114.
4. جلالی، محمود؛ توسلی اردکانی، سعیده (1398)، «ضرورت ایجاد نظام هماهنگ حقوقی بین‌المللی در مقابله با جرائم در فضای مجازی»، مطالعات حقوق عمومی، ش 4، صص 1351-1372.
5. رضوی‌فرد، بهزاد؛ موسوی، نعمت‌اله (1396)، «محدودیت‌ها و راهبردهای صلاحیت در جرائم سایبری»، مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، ش 98، صص 83-102.
6. شهبازی، آرامش؛ آقاجانی رونقی، آیدا (1399)، «جاسوسی سایبری در حقوق بین‌الملل: مسئلۀ انتساب مسئولیت بین‌المللی به دولت در هاله‌ای از ابهام»، مطالعات حقوق عمومی، ش 4، صص 1487-1503.
7. وطنی، امیر؛ اسدی، حمید (1395)، «سیاست جنایی جمهوری اسلامی ایران در جرائم سایبری با تأکید بر ویژگی‌های خاص این جرائم»، پژوهشنامۀ حقوق اسلامی، ش 44، صص 99-126.
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Currie, J. Robert & Rikhof, Joseph (2013), International and Transnational Criminal Law, 2nd ed., Irwin Law.
2. Koops, B. Jaap & Goodwin, Morag (2014), ‘Cyberspace, the Cloud, and Cross-Border Criminal Investigation the Limits and Possibilities of International Law’, Tilburg Law School Legal Studies Research Paper, Tilburg University.
B) Articles
3. Bahremand, Hamid (2018), “Challenges of Concurrence of Crimes Regulations in Cybercrime”, The Legal Journal of Justice, Vol. 81, No. 100, pp. 53-66 (in Persian).
4. Chander, Anupam & Uyen P. Le (2015), “Data Nationalism”, Emory Law Journal, Vol. 64(3).
5. Chertoff, Michael (2017), “Opinion: Data Localization is Misguided”, The Chertoff Group. Available at; https://www.chertoffgroup.com/blog/opinion-data-localization-is-misguided.
6. Daskal, Jennifer (2016), “Law Enforcement Access to Data Across Borders: The Evolving Security and Rights Issues”, The Journal of the ACS Issue Briefs, Vol. 11, pp. 45-57.
7. Daskal, Jennifer (2017), “Access to Data Across Borders: The Critical Role for Congress to Play Now”, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
8. Fijnaut, Cyrille (2012), “The Globalisation of Police and Judicial Cooperation: Drivers, Substance and Organisational Arrangements, Political Complications”, in Saskia Hufnagel, Clive Harfield, and Simon Bronitt (eds.), Cross-border Law Enforcement: Regional Law Enforcement Cooperation European, Australian and Asia Pacific Perspectives, Routledge.
9. Finklea, M. Kristin (2013), “The Interplay of Borders, Turf, Cyberspace and Jurisdiction; Issues Confronting Us Law Enforcement”, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress’, No. 7-5700, , Available at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41927.pdf.
10. Green, Y. Jason (2015), “Railing Against Cyber Imperialism: Discussing the Issues Surrounding the Pending Appeal of United States V. Microsoft Corp.”, North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 16.
11. Habibi, Homayoon & Shamloo, Soodeh (2014), “The Role of the ICJ in the Development of International Law”, Journal of Public Law, Vol. 14, No.41, pp. 71-114 (in Persian).
12. Heuvel, V. Katrina and Stephen F. Cohen (2014), Edward Snowden: A ‘Nation’ Interview.
13. Hsiao, Russell (2015), “Implications for the Future of Global Data Security and Privacy: the Territorial Application of the Stored Communications Act and the Microsoft Case”, Catholic University Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 24, No.1.
14. Hufnagel, Saskia and Carole McCartney (2015), “Police Cooperation Against Transnational Criminals”; in Neil Boister and Robert J. Currie, Handbook of Transnational Criminal Law, Routledge.
15. Jalali, Mahmoud & Tavassoli Ardakani, Saeede (2020), “Necessity of Establishment of an International Harmonized Legal System against Crimes in Cyberspace”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 49, No.4, pp. 1351-1372 (in Persian).
16. Mozur, Paul; Daisuke Wakabayashi and Nick Wingfield (2017), Apple Opening Data Center in China to Comply with Cybersecurity Law, New York Times.
17. Narayanan, Vineeth (2012), “Harnessing the Cloud: International Law Implications of Cloud-Computing”, Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 12, No.2.
18. Pourghahramani, Babak (2017), “Comparative Study of Strategies to Protect Victims of Computer Crimes in the Criminal Law of Iran and International Documents with Emphasis on the Budapest Convention”, Journal of Criminal Law Research, Vol. 8, No.1, pp. 1-36 (in Persian).
19. Razavifard, Behzad & Mousavi, Neamat Allah (2017), “Limitations and Strategies of Jurisdiction in Cybercrimes”, The Legal Journal of Justice, Vol. 81, No. 98, pp. 83-102 (in Persian).
20. Scassa, Teresa & Robert J. Currie (2011), “New First Principles? Assessing the Internet’s Challenges to Jurisdiction”, Georgetown Journal of International Law, Vol. 42.
21. Selby, John (2017), “Data Localization Laws: Trade Barriers or Legitimate Responses to Cybersecurity Risks, or Both?”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Vol. 25(3), Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 213-232.
22. Shahbazi, Aramesh & Ronaghi, Aida Aghajani (2021), “Cyber Espionage in International Law: Attribution of International Responsibility to States in a State of Uncertainty”, Public Law Studies Quarterly, Vol. 50, No.4, pp. 1487-1503 (in Persian).
23. Swire, Peter & Justin D. Hemmings (2017), “Mutual Legal Assistance in an Area of Globalized Commc’ns: The Analogy to the Visa Waiver Program”, N.Y.U. Annual Survey American Law, Vol. 71.
24. Vatani, Amir & Asadi, Hamid (2016), “Criminal Policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Dealing with Cyber Crimes”, Islamic Law Research Journal, Vol. 17, No.44, pp. 99-126 (in Persian).
25. Vincent, Mark & Nick Hart (2011), “Law in the Cloud: Legal Issues Relating to the Location of Data, Security and Reliability”, Law Society Journal: Official Journal of the Law Society of New South Wales, Vol. 49, No.5, pp. 50-55.
C) Cases and Documents
26. Microsoft Corp. v. United States (2016), In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-Mail Account Controlled & Maintained, No. 829 F.3d.
27. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (2007), No. 550 U.S.
28. United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2014), In the Matter of a Warrant to Search a Certain E-mail Account Controlled and Maintained by Microsoft Corporation, No. 2014 WL 1661004.
)