RE: the CLOUD Act (was What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet)

["Keith Medcalf" <kmedcalf () dessus com>]

On Tuesday, 6 August, 2019 12:17, Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell () isipp com> wrote:

...

> John Deaux is from London, and a citizen of the UK. John is working
> in the U.S., at a tech company in Palo Alto, California. John has a
> Gmail account, and uses Dropbox to store his photos. A law
> enforcement agency in the UK decides that it wants access to the data
> in John’s Gmail account and Dropbox account, and so they serve a
> demand for the production of John’s data on Google and Dropbox, under
> the CLOUD Act. If the U.S. and the UK have an executive agreement in
> place as contemplated by the CLOUD Act, Google and Dropbox must
> comply.

I assume that by "serve a demand" you mean "send a letter requesting"?

I realize that the purpose of the terms "serve a demand" if legal globedey-glook phrased to pompously instill in the 
reader some feeling of the majesty and due regard for the process (etc), but in reality it is just pompous for "send a 
letter requesting" is it not?

> Google and Dropbox must comply.

Well, no.

They do not "have to" do anything.  You do not *have to comply* with anything.  Such is the nature of existance and it 
has always been thus.  Of course, those seeking compliance are also free to torture you until you do as they want, but 
you do not "have to comply".  What happens when an irresistable force (the torturer) meets and immovable object (the 
one refusing to comply) depends on which has the greatest resolve.

--
The fact that there's a Highway to Hell but only a Stairway to Heaven says a lot about anticipated traffic volume.