7 ms·

> 2. No Party shall require a covered person to use or locate computing facilities in that Party’s territory as a condition for conducting business in that terr

> 2. No Party shall require a covered person to use or locate computing facilities in that Party’s territory as a condition for conducting business in that territory. No Russian server situations http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacific/TPP-text/14.%20Electronic%20Commerce%20Chapter.pdf http://www.mfat.govt.nz/downloads/trade-agreement/transpacif...

walterbell 11y ago
National data sovereignty would be restricted by TPP, if enacted into law, http://www.zdnet.com/article/tpp-moves-toward-killing-off-government-mandated-data-sovereignty/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/tpp-moves-toward-killing-off-go... & https://blog.ffii.org/a-license-to-spy-cross-border-data-flows-in-ttip/ https://blog.ffii.org/a-license-to-spy-cross-border-data-flo... "Governments ... will be unable to force companies from those countries to store government data in local datacentres ... governments will not only be prevented from mandating data sovereignty provision, they will also be unable to demand access to source code from companies incorporated in TPP territories."
- MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
  Wow. So this would mean that it is illegal to even require something like a safe haven for your own data?
  - walterbell 11y ago
    TPP is an agreement between governments and corporations. Corporations could make individual agreements with their supplier corporations, where they could impose privacy conditions for data storage and jurisdiction. But this would be difficult for small businesses to negotiate. In Europe, the proposed TISA trade treaty text on data sovereignty is in conflict with EU law, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/09013129465/new-tisa-leak-us-collision-course-with-eu-over-global-data-flows.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/09013129465/new-t... "For the European Union, that's a hugely sensitive issue. Under data protection laws there, personal data cannot be sent outside the EU unless companies sign up to the self-certification scheme known as the Safe Harbor framework. TISA Article X.4: Movement of Information No Party may prevent a service supplier of another Party from transferring, accessing, processing or storing information, including personal information, within or outside the Party's territory, where such activity is carried out in connection with the conduct of the service supplier's business." http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/dont-forget-big-data-ttip-and-tisa-314487 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/dont-forget-big..., "It is one thing to have free data flows in the EU, where our own institutions make the rules for data protection and we can develop our technological sovereignty, but quite another to have free data flows across the Atlantic without adequate US rules for the treatment of European data ... Data about our condition and behaviour are assets ... they constitute a new asset class, which Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance assets.”
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > TPP is an agreement between governments and corporations. Since when are corporations party to a treaty? While the TPP is a huge push toward corporate sovereignty by diluting the power of governments, this is a trade agreement between nations. Just because the treaty is effectively governments hading power over to corporations (sorry, "investors"[1]) doesn't mean those corporations ratify the TPP. [1] Investor-State Dispute Settlement? Just investors, not corporations in geneal or "other non-state actors"? This isn't even trying to hide that it's all about free movement of capital. Get ready to watch even more money flow out of the country.
      - walterbell 11y ago
        While corporations may not officially ratify TPP, corporate lawyers (a) helped draft the treaty text, (b) had online access to drafts, while elected US government representatives had to read in a locked room, without taking notes, without their trade/legal staff, without a phone, (c) will be the people staffing future World Bank ISDS "courts" that can force governments to pay fines to corporations, https://youtube.com/watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg https://youtube.com/watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg The only force that can now stop ratification are the many corporations who did not receive TPP handouts and special TPP privileges for their legacy business models. Since citizens cannot effectively lobby government, the only recourse left is for citizen employees to lobby corporations who can lobby government. If you work in a technology company, ask your company to take a public stand on TPP. Ask Wikipedia to go dark in alternating 30 minute slots, to raise awareness about TPP. Look at examples where SOPA was brought to public attention. Remember that the lead TPP negotiator is ex-Citibank, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wall-street-crony-groups-demand-transparency http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wal..., "Noting deep ties between the country's top trade negotiator and Wall Street banks, ten groups representing millions of Americans are calling on the White House to make public all communications between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the massive financial institutions that stand to benefit from proposed trade deals." For more on lobbyists, http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-show-close-industry-involvement-in-tpp-negotiations/ http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-..., ".. Many of the industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials ... Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, “Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules … This is a very pleasant surprise."
  - higgy87 11y ago
    That would be one way to look at it. The other way is that companies can put their data wherever they like.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      > their data That’s the issue. User data always is the users data, the company merely has the license to store and access it. Retroactive more permissible licenses are also not okay.
    - MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
      They mostly can, except for certain sensitive information. Some things should be regulated - I'm glad there are safety standards, and this is a (very basic) safety standard for data.
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    No, if I read right, it would mean that the government cannot require you to store your data within your government's jurisdiction.
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    > Wow. So this would mean that it is illegal to even require something like a safe haven for your own data? But safe haven is silly. I'm French and I don't care about my data being stored in the US. Why should the government force me to store my data in France? People who want to store their data in France only should be free to do so of course but why bring the government into the equation? Besides, safe haven is incompatible with reality where data is being live replicated across the world to make access to it faster depending on who is accessing it and what timezone they're in.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Governments have different privacy protections. A company choosing to operate in Country A should obey the laws of that country. Operating in Country A, but sending the data to Country B which has much less strict data protection laws means people in Country A suffer. What was the point of the government of Country A making their data protection law if there's no way of enforcing those laws?
      - patrickaljord 11y ago
        So if I have a friend in Country B and I'm in country A on facebook, she will not be able to access my profile info without downloading the info from across the world because the data can't be replicated to her country leaving her with a horrible slow user experience? Sounds like turning the internet into a UX horror story and inefficient mess to me.
        DanBC 11y ago
        What? No, safe harbour means the data can be replicated to different countries.
        patrickaljord 11y ago
        Then what's to prevent Country B to access data replicated in its borders?
        11y ago
jellicle 11y ago
That clause is just to undermine the European Union data directives.
- strictnein 11y ago
  Sort of, but you would still be required (I believe) to have a worker in Europe to look at any personally identifiable information of any European, even if the data is actually in the US.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Which is, funnily, not possible, because the EU original treaties (which are not really changeable) contradict these treaties. Meaning, the treaty could not be ratified as long as the clause is valid. The question is now if the clause is null and void, or the whole treaty will be null and void (as in the case of Safe Harbor)
  - renlo 11y ago
    And it's an agreement for countries in the Pacific. Not for any countries in the EU.

walterbell 11y ago

National data sovereignty would be restricted by TPP, if enacted into law, http://www.zdnet.com/article/tpp-moves-toward-killing-off-government-mandated-data-sovereignty/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/tpp-moves-toward-killing-off-go... & https://blog.ffii.org/a-license-to-spy-cross-border-data-flows-in-ttip/ https://blog.ffii.org/a-license-to-spy-cross-border-data-flo... "Governments ... will be unable to force companies from those countries to store government data in local datacentres ... governments will not only be prevented from mandating data sovereignty provision, they will also be unable to demand access to source code from companies incorporated in TPP territories."

MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
Wow. So this would mean that it is illegal to even require something like a safe haven for your own data?
- walterbell 11y ago
  TPP is an agreement between governments and corporations. Corporations could make individual agreements with their supplier corporations, where they could impose privacy conditions for data storage and jurisdiction. But this would be difficult for small businesses to negotiate. In Europe, the proposed TISA trade treaty text on data sovereignty is in conflict with EU law, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/09013129465/new-tisa-leak-us-collision-course-with-eu-over-global-data-flows.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141217/09013129465/new-t... "For the European Union, that's a hugely sensitive issue. Under data protection laws there, personal data cannot be sent outside the EU unless companies sign up to the self-certification scheme known as the Safe Harbor framework. TISA Article X.4: Movement of Information No Party may prevent a service supplier of another Party from transferring, accessing, processing or storing information, including personal information, within or outside the Party's territory, where such activity is carried out in connection with the conduct of the service supplier's business." http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/dont-forget-big-data-ttip-and-tisa-314487 http://www.euractiv.com/sections/infosociety/dont-forget-big..., "It is one thing to have free data flows in the EU, where our own institutions make the rules for data protection and we can develop our technological sovereignty, but quite another to have free data flows across the Atlantic without adequate US rules for the treatment of European data ... Data about our condition and behaviour are assets ... they constitute a new asset class, which Harvard professor Shoshana Zuboff calls “surveillance assets.”
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > TPP is an agreement between governments and corporations. Since when are corporations party to a treaty? While the TPP is a huge push toward corporate sovereignty by diluting the power of governments, this is a trade agreement between nations. Just because the treaty is effectively governments hading power over to corporations (sorry, "investors"[1]) doesn't mean those corporations ratify the TPP. [1] Investor-State Dispute Settlement? Just investors, not corporations in geneal or "other non-state actors"? This isn't even trying to hide that it's all about free movement of capital. Get ready to watch even more money flow out of the country.
    - walterbell 11y ago
      While corporations may not officially ratify TPP, corporate lawyers (a) helped draft the treaty text, (b) had online access to drafts, while elected US government representatives had to read in a locked room, without taking notes, without their trade/legal staff, without a phone, (c) will be the people staffing future World Bank ISDS "courts" that can force governments to pay fines to corporations, https://youtube.com/watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg https://youtube.com/watch?v=AABOIcXZZwg The only force that can now stop ratification are the many corporations who did not receive TPP handouts and special TPP privileges for their legacy business models. Since citizens cannot effectively lobby government, the only recourse left is for citizen employees to lobby corporations who can lobby government. If you work in a technology company, ask your company to take a public stand on TPP. Ask Wikipedia to go dark in alternating 30 minute slots, to raise awareness about TPP. Look at examples where SOPA was brought to public attention. Remember that the lead TPP negotiator is ex-Citibank, http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wall-street-crony-groups-demand-transparency http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/05/28/us-trade-rep-wal..., "Noting deep ties between the country's top trade negotiator and Wall Street banks, ten groups representing millions of Americans are calling on the White House to make public all communications between U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and the massive financial institutions that stand to benefit from proposed trade deals." For more on lobbyists, http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-show-close-industry-involvement-in-tpp-negotiations/ http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-..., ".. Many of the industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials ... Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, “Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules … This is a very pleasant surprise."
- higgy87 11y ago
  That would be one way to look at it. The other way is that companies can put their data wherever they like.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    > their data That’s the issue. User data always is the users data, the company merely has the license to store and access it. Retroactive more permissible licenses are also not okay.
  - MrBuddyCasino 11y ago
    They mostly can, except for certain sensitive information. Some things should be regulated - I'm glad there are safety standards, and this is a (very basic) safety standard for data.
- ptaipale 11y ago
  No, if I read right, it would mean that the government cannot require you to store your data within your government's jurisdiction.
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  > Wow. So this would mean that it is illegal to even require something like a safe haven for your own data? But safe haven is silly. I'm French and I don't care about my data being stored in the US. Why should the government force me to store my data in France? People who want to store their data in France only should be free to do so of course but why bring the government into the equation? Besides, safe haven is incompatible with reality where data is being live replicated across the world to make access to it faster depending on who is accessing it and what timezone they're in.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Governments have different privacy protections. A company choosing to operate in Country A should obey the laws of that country. Operating in Country A, but sending the data to Country B which has much less strict data protection laws means people in Country A suffer. What was the point of the government of Country A making their data protection law if there's no way of enforcing those laws?
    - patrickaljord 11y ago
      So if I have a friend in Country B and I'm in country A on facebook, she will not be able to access my profile info without downloading the info from across the world because the data can't be replicated to her country leaving her with a horrible slow user experience? Sounds like turning the internet into a UX horror story and inefficient mess to me.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        What? No, safe harbour means the data can be replicated to different countries.
        patrickaljord 11y ago
        Then what's to prevent Country B to access data replicated in its borders?
      - 11y ago

jellicle 11y ago

That clause is just to undermine the European Union data directives.

strictnein 11y ago
Sort of, but you would still be required (I believe) to have a worker in Europe to look at any personally identifiable information of any European, even if the data is actually in the US.
kuschku 11y ago
Which is, funnily, not possible, because the EU original treaties (which are not really changeable) contradict these treaties. Meaning, the treaty could not be ratified as long as the clause is valid. The question is now if the clause is null and void, or the whole treaty will be null and void (as in the case of Safe Harbor)
- renlo 11y ago
  And it's an agreement for countries in the Pacific. Not for any countries in the EU.