Cloud Architecture as Surveillance Infrastructure: How CLOUD Act and FISA 702 Create Mandatory Government Access
Cloud Act/FISA Implementation Post-Election
In 2024, US government made 500,000 data requests to tech companies. EU member countries requested data on 164,000 accounts in the first half of 2024 alone—a 1,377% increase from 2014. German authorities accessed information on 77,000 accounts, representing a 2,484% spike from a decade earlier.
When your endpoint detection data lives in CrowdStrike’s cloud, or your authentication logs sit on Microsoft’s servers, government agencies don’t need to subpoena you. They subpoena your vendor. The CLOUD Act (2018) and FISA Section 702 (expanded 2024) created mandatory access points in cloud infrastructure. If you’re using US-based security vendors, your data is accessible to law enforcement without notifying you—regardless of where the servers physically sit.
US Perspective: Volume and Legal Framework
Swiss privacy provider Proton analyzed transparency reports from major US tech companies between late 2014 and early 2024. The data shows tech providers turned over information on 3.1 million accounts to federal government. This figure excludes FISA requests, which remain largely classified.
The breakdown reveals accelerating compliance:
Meta: 2,171% increase in FISA content requests
Google: 594% increase in FISA requests
Apple: 274% increase between 2018-2023
According to Proton COO Raphael Auphan, “All that’s required for the government to find out just about everything it could ever need is a request message to Big Tech in California. And as long as Big Tech refuses to implement widespread end-to-end encryption, these massive, private data reserves will remain open to abuse.”
The legal architecture enabling this access expanded significantly in April 2024. The Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA) redefined “electronic communication service providers” under FISA Section 702. The 2008 version covered companies like Google, Meta, and AT&T that directly facilitate communications. The 2024 expansion encompasses “any organization or individual who has access to devices on which communication is stored or through which communication is transmitted.” Only restaurants, hotels, private residences, and municipal facilities received limited exemptions.
This means cloud data centers, colocation facilities, and managed service providers—including security vendors—now fall under mandatory compliance.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence released its Annual Statistical Transparency Report for Calendar Year 2024 in May 2025. While the report confirmed Section 702 reauthorization through April 2026, it also documented increased query volumes attributed to “cybersecurity and international terrorist threats.” The report noted higher numbers resulted from “cyberthreats to US infrastructure” and various international incidents.
EU Perspective: Despite Privacy Rhetoric, Surveillance Accelerating
France’s Institute for Strategic Research (IRSEM) published analysis in April 2024 noting FISA’s renewal “went relatively unnoticed” despite its implications for European data. The French defense research institute observed: “Alongside the Patriot Act passed in 2001 and the CLOUD Act adopted in 2018, it is one of the US laws directly threatening the security of European data.”
The report emphasized extraterritorial reach: “Their extraterritorial reach allows the US government to compel American digital services companies to provide their customers’ data, even if it never leaves European soil.”
EU member countries aren’t passive observers—they’re active participants in this expansion. The Proton analysis showed EU requests for data reached 164,000 accounts in H1 2024, up 1,377% from H2 2014.
The French National Commission on Informatics and Liberty (CNIL) forced France’s Health Data Hub to relocate data away from Microsoft in October 2020 following the Schrems II ruling. Microsoft held the encryption keys, meaning US intelligence agencies could compel decryption regardless of European server locations.
A February 2025 parliamentary inquiry from MEP Raquel García Hermida-Van Der Walle questioned whether the European Commission would suspend the 2023 EU-US Data Privacy Framework. The inquiry cited concerns about the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board’s independence after the Trump administration removed Democratic members from PCLOB on January 27, 2025. This action left the board without a quorum, hindering its oversight capacity.
German Federal Data Protection Commissioner and Swedish Data Protection Authority have both questioned the framework’s long-term validity under current circumstances.
Germany: Aggressive Enforcement, Massive Increase
Germany exemplifies how surveillance expands even in countries with strong privacy rhetoric. The Proton data showed German authorities requested access to 77,000 accounts in H2 2024. This represents a 2,484% increase from 2014 levels.
Germany led EU countries in data requests, followed by France and Poland. The volume demonstrates that privacy regulations like GDPR haven’t prevented government surveillance—they’ve just formalized the process.
Estonia: The Decentralized Alternative
Estonia demonstrates a contrasting architecture model. The nation’s X-Road data exchange system has processed government services for 1.3 million citizens since 2001 without centralized data storage.
X-Road uses a distributed architecture where data flows directly between sender and receiver without central hub storage. Each participating entity authenticates through digital certificates from trusted Certification Authorities. Data travels through encrypted channels and carries digital signatures with timestamps.
The system has connected over 450 institutions and enterprises, processing nearly 1 billion annual queries (95% automated). Despite Estonia ranking among the most cyber-targeted nations globally—experiencing persistent attacks since the first major cyber offensive in 2007—X-Road has maintained service continuity without known major security breaches or data leaks for 25 years.
The architectural difference matters. Estonia’s system provides government services without creating surveillance intermediaries. US and EU cloud architectures, by contrast, centralize data processing in ways that legal frameworks can compel providers to access.
Why Cloud Infrastructure Enables This: Single Point of Compulsion
Cloud security vendors centralize data processing for efficiency and feature capabilities. This centralization creates what attorneys call a “single point of compulsion”—one entity government can legally require to provide access.
When CrowdStrike analyzes endpoint data, that analysis happens in their cloud infrastructure. When Microsoft Azure hosts your authentication systems, those logs flow through Microsoft’s servers. When any US-based security vendor processes your data, that vendor becomes the access point for government requests.
The CLOUD Act permits US law enforcement to demand data stored anywhere by a US-controlled provider through warrant. FISA Section 702 allows warrantless surveillance of non-US citizens under “national security” pretexts. These laws override local jurisdiction and operate in secrecy. Vendors face legal prohibition against notifying customers of access requests.
Encryption Theater
Cloud providers promote encryption as sovereignty protection. The technical reality contradicts the marketing.
If the vendor manages encryption keys, they can be compelled to hand over unencrypted data. External Key Management (EKM) remains optional for most services and still requires trust in US-based entity operations. Confidential computing protects some workloads but doesn’t eliminate legal obligations or protect metadata.
The French CNIL decision on Health Data Hub made this explicit: Microsoft controlled the keys, therefore US intelligence could compel access despite European server locations and GDPR compliance.
Legal Architecture Supersedes Technical Architecture
No contract or “EU data region” designation neutralizes CLOUD Act or FISA 702 reach. If the provider answers to US jurisdiction, the data remains accessible.
A German white paper published April 2025 stated bluntly: “The CLOUD Act and FISA 702 give US authorities far-reaching access to European data stored in US clouds. This violates the GDPR and poses a significant risk to European companies.”
The paper noted violations could result in fines up to €20 million or 4% of annual global revenue. Yet companies continue using US cloud services because alternatives lack feature parity or market scale.
What Post-Election Changes Mean
The Trump administration’s January 2025 dismantling of PCLOB oversight removes a key accountability mechanism. The board previously monitored compliance with data protection regulations by US intelligence agencies.
Cybersecurity attorney Bart Jacobs from Radboud University warned that the administration could further amend CLOUD Act provisions, making intelligence service access even more streamlined.
Trump announced review of all Biden-era executive orders, including those establishing the Data Privacy Framework. The framework relies primarily on executive order structure rather than legislation, making it vulnerable to unilateral changes.
The administration proposed 17% budget cuts to CISA in May 2025, removing over $490 million in funding. This reduction specifically targeted international engagement and misinformation work, refocusing the agency on “core mission” of protecting critical systems.
What This Architecture Buys
The relationship between technology vendors and government isn’t coincidental. It’s transactional.
Apple, Amazon, and Oracle each donated $1 million to Trump’s 2025 inauguration. Tim Cook boycotted the 2016 Republican National Convention. By January 2025, he attended Trump’s inauguration after making that donation.
These aren’t campaign contributions in the traditional sense. They’re infrastructure payments. What vendors receive in exchange:
Regulatory Favorability: The FCC approved Ellison’s Skydance-Paramount merger 22 days after CBS News paid Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit. This merger gave Ellison control over CBS News and 28 local TV stations.
Government Contracts: Cloud vendors compete for federal contracts worth billions. Favorable relationships with administration officials influence contract awards.
Antitrust Leniency: DOJ and FTC enforcement actions against tech companies require executive branch discretion. Political donations create incentives for lenient interpretation.
Access to Policymakers: Regular White House meetings provide opportunity to shape legislation affecting data access requirements, encryption policies, and surveillance authorities.
The surveillance architecture isn’t a byproduct of cloud computing—it’s a feature that government mandates and vendors profit from implementing.
Thursday Follow Up: Eliminating the Surveillance Intermediary
Estonia built government services this way 25 years ago. The technical approach works. The question is whether organizations will prioritize data sovereignty over cloud vendor convenience.
Sources:
Proton’s analysis of tech company transparency reports
ODNI Annual Statistical Transparency Report CY2024
IRSEM Strategic Brief on FISA Extension