You continue to make the same faulty parallel. The court ruled that the seizure of the evidence (not the passwords, but the evidence) was legal because the machines did not reside in the U.S. and therefore they were not protected by U.S. law. My Hotmail does not reside outside the U.S. and therefore is protected by U.S. law.

And your sovereignty argument falls short as well. Does it also stand to reason that if Iraq makes a law saying that its citizens are allowed to launch nuclear weapons at us from within their borders, then it is our courts' responsibility to respect that sovereignty as well, and prevent any preemption or retaliation?

Maintaining dimplomatic relations is important, but I cannot accept that foreign nationals wreaking criminal acts against Americans should be afforded *our* protection under *their* legal system. If they wanted protection under Russian law, they shouldn't have come here. But they came, we tried them under our legal system, and the seizure of evidence was deemed legal, and it does NOT logically follow that it will be deemed legal for my company to read my personal email, or bank accounts, etc.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/105/16285#16285