6 ms·

> 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 car

> 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?
  - bduerst 11y ago
    A lot of major web companies already cache at different geolocations, to lower latency.
3pt14159 11y ago
Because governments have national security interests and need to be realistic about allowing their citizens to keep sensitive information in the hands of potential adversaries. If the US or Russian government can blackmail a computer technician into "accidentally" leaving a back door open because the technician is secretly gay and they know this because of an analysis of his Facebook messages, then this is a threat that the state may want to minimize.
- patrickaljord 11y ago
  That's true if you consider individual liberties to be less important State interests I guess, which is not my opinion.
  - dreamfactory2 11y ago
    Remember you are often storing data which concerns other people e.g. messages, address books and other PID
    - patrickaljord 11y ago
      If people are storing data online that could be a risk to their lives or the life of their loved ones, then they should either not upload this data at all or strongly encrypt it before uploading such data. Whether it's stored in their own countries or abroad, criminal hackers don't care about borders.
      - dreamfactory2 11y ago
        It's not that simple at all - for example the recent finding that even using your own mailservers, half your mail would be going through google. As networking increases, data is becoming little more compartmentalised than the air we breathe - and we reasonably require pollution safeguards which everyone needs to adhere to
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>I don't care about my data being stored in the US Because uninformed consent is not consent and most people do not give informed consent to their data being stored overseas as they are not aware of all the laws and regulations that apply to it. Unless we do want to say that uninformed consent is still consent, but what kind of problems does that create?
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  Caveat emptor.
  - wfo 11y ago
    Is a shining example of a failed economic principle which has caused unmitigated disaster whenever it is employed and is immediately rolled back by any group of human beings who care at all about what's good for anyone in the group.
    - patrickaljord 11y ago
      Not so true. With the internet it's easier to learn about the reputation of a vendor, so much so that many vendors are confident enough to offer return policies that go beyond what the law requires and most people rely more on these reviews than whatever refund policy vendors offer anyway.
      - wfo 11y ago
        I'm sure that you will be greatly comforted by a return policy or the fact that a company had to spend a few dollars to hire an Internet PR consulting firm or buy off yelp to smooth over any temporary loss in brand loyalty that occurs when they, say, don't properly care for their meat and people die from eating it. Or when they put poison in their children's toys because it's cheaper to make them that way and kids die. It as a method generally works when consumers are aware of all of their options, do their research and stay informed about every single economic purchase they make throughout every moment of their lives, and the consequences of a bad choice are not serious. So nowhere in the real world. And it's not so horrible when the choices don't matter: when none of them are harmful, and we're simply deciding based on quality. It's still bad, but we tolerate it because nobody dies from it.

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?
- bduerst 11y ago
  A lot of major web companies already cache at different geolocations, to lower latency.

3pt14159 11y ago

Because governments have national security interests and need to be realistic about allowing their citizens to keep sensitive information in the hands of potential adversaries. If the US or Russian government can blackmail a computer technician into "accidentally" leaving a back door open because the technician is secretly gay and they know this because of an analysis of his Facebook messages, then this is a threat that the state may want to minimize.

patrickaljord 11y ago
That's true if you consider individual liberties to be less important State interests I guess, which is not my opinion.
- dreamfactory2 11y ago
  Remember you are often storing data which concerns other people e.g. messages, address books and other PID
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    If people are storing data online that could be a risk to their lives or the life of their loved ones, then they should either not upload this data at all or strongly encrypt it before uploading such data. Whether it's stored in their own countries or abroad, criminal hackers don't care about borders.
    - dreamfactory2 11y ago
      It's not that simple at all - for example the recent finding that even using your own mailservers, half your mail would be going through google. As networking increases, data is becoming little more compartmentalised than the air we breathe - and we reasonably require pollution safeguards which everyone needs to adhere to

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>I don't care about my data being stored in the US Because uninformed consent is not consent and most people do not give informed consent to their data being stored overseas as they are not aware of all the laws and regulations that apply to it. Unless we do want to say that uninformed consent is still consent, but what kind of problems does that create?

marcoperaza 11y ago
Caveat emptor.
- wfo 11y ago
  Is a shining example of a failed economic principle which has caused unmitigated disaster whenever it is employed and is immediately rolled back by any group of human beings who care at all about what's good for anyone in the group.
  - patrickaljord 11y ago
    Not so true. With the internet it's easier to learn about the reputation of a vendor, so much so that many vendors are confident enough to offer return policies that go beyond what the law requires and most people rely more on these reviews than whatever refund policy vendors offer anyway.
    - wfo 11y ago
      I'm sure that you will be greatly comforted by a return policy or the fact that a company had to spend a few dollars to hire an Internet PR consulting firm or buy off yelp to smooth over any temporary loss in brand loyalty that occurs when they, say, don't properly care for their meat and people die from eating it. Or when they put poison in their children's toys because it's cheaper to make them that way and kids die. It as a method generally works when consumers are aware of all of their options, do their research and stay informed about every single economic purchase they make throughout every moment of their lives, and the consequences of a bad choice are not serious. So nowhere in the real world. And it's not so horrible when the choices don't matter: when none of them are harmful, and we're simply deciding based on quality. It's still bad, but we tolerate it because nobody dies from it.