Software giant Microsoft is refusing to hand over customer emails from its Dublin facility to US prosecutors while it appeals against the order.

Last week US district judge Loretta Preska lifted the suspension on the order against Microsoft.

Preska delayed enforcement on Microsoft so it could have time to appeal the ruling.

A Microsoft spokesperson told Reuters “Microsoft will not be turning over the email and plans to appeal. Everyone agrees this case can and will proceed to the appeals court. This is simply about finding the appropriate procedure for that to happen.”

Microsoft has been up in arms with the US government since the NSA revelations were leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden last year.

In a company blog post in June, Microsoft’s general counsel and EVP of legal & corporate affairs Brad Smith said a lot has changed since the revelations, however the US government needs to address important unfinished business.

Smith stated in the blog that the US government needed to recognize that a US search warrant must end at US borders.

“We’re concerned about governmental attempts to use search warrants to force companies to turn over the contents of non-US customer communications that are stored exclusively outside of the US,” Smith said.

Preska ordered Microsoft to hand over the Dublin data on July 31 after a two-hour court hearing, much to the concern from privacy groups and other major technology companies.

According to Reuters prosecutors said that because Preska’s order was not a “final, appealable order” and because Microsoft had yet to be held in contempt, there was no legal reason to enforce the stay.

Preska stated her order “merely confirmed the government’s temporary forbearing of its right to stay enforcement of the order it secured. The fact the court has not closed this case cuts against Microsoft’s argument.”

Preska has ordered both sides to advise by September 5 how to proceed.

Microsoft is part of a group of companies looking to review the laws and practices regulating government surveillance of individuals and access to their information.

The Reform Government Surveillance group is supported by companies including Apple, Facebook, Google, Twitter and Yahoo!

The group recently sent a letter signed by the companies CEO’s to the US Senate.

The group has set out five key principles:

- Limiting government’s authority to collect users’ information
Governments should codify sensible limitations on their ability to compel service providers to disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the Internet. In addition, governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of Internet communications.

- Oversight and accountability
Intelligence agencies seeking to collect or compel the production of information should do so under a clear legal framework in which executive powers are subject to strong checks and balances. Reviewing courts should be independent and include an adversarial process, and governments should allow important rulings of law to be made public in a timely manner so that the courts are accountable to an informed citizenry.

- Transparency about government demands
Transparency is essential to a debate over governments’ surveillance powers and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers. Governments should allow companies to publish the number and nature of government demands for user information. In addition, governments should also promptly disclose this data publicly.

- Respecting the free flow of information
The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust 21^st century global economy. Governments should permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside of the country. Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally.

- Avoiding conflicts among governments
In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty — or “MLAT” — processes. Where the laws of one jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon governments to work together to resolve the conflict.