3 ms·

If that was the spirit of the agreement, then I would expect to see some clauses forbidding geo-blocking, or offering different "app-store" based on your countr

by kinkdr 10y ago

If that was the spirit of the agreement, then I would expect to see some clauses forbidding geo-blocking, or offering different "app-store" based on your country of residence, etc.. Otherwise it is terribly one-sided. It is not fair to consider internet being global and borderless when it is in corps advantage, but segmented and controlled when it comes to consumers rights. Right?

JoshTriplett 10y ago
If there were a widespread problem with governments mandating market segmentation, I'd certainly want to see that. But it seems rather unlikely that a trade agreement like this would restrict the ability to do business with a company that segments app stores by country. Consumers can make that choice for themselves, just like they can choose whether to do business with a company based on where they store their data or whether they have a local presence.
- izacus 10y ago
  Which sounds like you're admitting that the treaty only benefits profits of large corporations and stops as soon as they'd have to give up a little bit to actualy help consumers across the world?
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    Don't put words in my mouth. I think the majority of the treaty is terrible, spreading laws that prop up businesses based on copyright and patents, and on balance I think that no country should adopt it. In this one particular case, it appears to remove artificial restrictions that prevent consumers from doing business with companies they otherwise want to do business with. I'm in favor of that, whether it's "you can't block a company from providing a service to a person in country X who wants that service just because they don't store data in country X" or "you can't block a company from providing a service to a person in country X who wants that service just because the company doesn't provide an identical service to a person in country Y". Either way, you're preventing two parties who want to work with each other from doing so. (Also, keep in mind that many of the "must store data locally" laws have less to do with protecting that data and more to do with making it available for attempted seizure.) If the people of a given country want to refuse to use a particular service because it stores their data elsewhere, or doesn't have a local presence, or shows them a different selection than people in other countries, or any of a thousand other reasons, they can already choose to do so. But there's a huge difference between choosing not to use a service and preventing anyone else from using it. I don't directly care about the profits of companies, large or otherwise, except to the extent those profits mean they've built something people want. I do care when people can't use a service they want because their country doesn't think they should or wants to prop up another. And I care when a company owned, operated, and staffed within one country suddenly has to worry about another country's government, rather than just what their users want.
    - kinkdr 10y ago
      Shall we break it down? Let's say Japan has the following two laws: 1. "Google cannot conduct business in Japan unless they store their data in Japan" 2. "Netflix cannot conduct business in Japan unless they allow complete access to all content" Who does law (1) benefit, and who will be benefited if it goes away? Same for (2). > (Also, keep in mind that many of the "must store data locally" laws have less to do with protecting that data and more to do with making it available for attempted seizure.) I think any government that would be interested in this, wouldn't sign the TPP agreement in the first place.
      - JoshTriplett 10y ago
        In both cases, "who will benefit if the law goes away" would be people who wanted to do business with Google and Netflix, but can't because those companies were told they "cannot conduct business". If Google and Netflix also benefit from that, it's because they offered something people wanted to pay for. The scenario you envision is "law blocks doing business in the country, so the business changes their practices". The more common scenario, for the majority of countries in the world, is "law blocks doing business in the country, so the people in that country don't get the service until enough people complain and the law goes away, or people find a way around the block if they want the service enough". How about this one: "Whatsapp cannot conduct business in Brazil unless they make their customers' data available to the government on demand". ("End-to-end encrypted? That doesn't sound like 'yes sir how would you like that delivered sir' to me.")
        kinkdr 10y ago
        I can see your point, and is definitely a multi-dimensional problem. Just for the record and for not getting misunderstood, my opinion and what I support is to break any artificial borders on the Internet, which means that on one hand a corps may choose to store the data wherever they think is better, but also prevent the corps from altering their service based on a persons location.
        10y ago

by kinkdr 10y ago

JoshTriplett 10y ago

If there were a widespread problem with governments mandating market segmentation, I'd certainly want to see that. But it seems rather unlikely that a trade agreement like this would restrict the ability to do business with a company that segments app stores by country. Consumers can make that choice for themselves, just like they can choose whether to do business with a company based on where they store their data or whether they have a local presence.

izacus 10y ago
Which sounds like you're admitting that the treaty only benefits profits of large corporations and stops as soon as they'd have to give up a little bit to actualy help consumers across the world?
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  Don't put words in my mouth. I think the majority of the treaty is terrible, spreading laws that prop up businesses based on copyright and patents, and on balance I think that no country should adopt it. In this one particular case, it appears to remove artificial restrictions that prevent consumers from doing business with companies they otherwise want to do business with. I'm in favor of that, whether it's "you can't block a company from providing a service to a person in country X who wants that service just because they don't store data in country X" or "you can't block a company from providing a service to a person in country X who wants that service just because the company doesn't provide an identical service to a person in country Y". Either way, you're preventing two parties who want to work with each other from doing so. (Also, keep in mind that many of the "must store data locally" laws have less to do with protecting that data and more to do with making it available for attempted seizure.) If the people of a given country want to refuse to use a particular service because it stores their data elsewhere, or doesn't have a local presence, or shows them a different selection than people in other countries, or any of a thousand other reasons, they can already choose to do so. But there's a huge difference between choosing not to use a service and preventing anyone else from using it. I don't directly care about the profits of companies, large or otherwise, except to the extent those profits mean they've built something people want. I do care when people can't use a service they want because their country doesn't think they should or wants to prop up another. And I care when a company owned, operated, and staffed within one country suddenly has to worry about another country's government, rather than just what their users want.
  - kinkdr 10y ago
    Shall we break it down? Let's say Japan has the following two laws: 1. "Google cannot conduct business in Japan unless they store their data in Japan" 2. "Netflix cannot conduct business in Japan unless they allow complete access to all content" Who does law (1) benefit, and who will be benefited if it goes away? Same for (2). > (Also, keep in mind that many of the "must store data locally" laws have less to do with protecting that data and more to do with making it available for attempted seizure.) I think any government that would be interested in this, wouldn't sign the TPP agreement in the first place.
    - JoshTriplett 10y ago
      In both cases, "who will benefit if the law goes away" would be people who wanted to do business with Google and Netflix, but can't because those companies were told they "cannot conduct business". If Google and Netflix also benefit from that, it's because they offered something people wanted to pay for. The scenario you envision is "law blocks doing business in the country, so the business changes their practices". The more common scenario, for the majority of countries in the world, is "law blocks doing business in the country, so the people in that country don't get the service until enough people complain and the law goes away, or people find a way around the block if they want the service enough". How about this one: "Whatsapp cannot conduct business in Brazil unless they make their customers' data available to the government on demand". ("End-to-end encrypted? That doesn't sound like 'yes sir how would you like that delivered sir' to me.")
      - kinkdr 10y ago
        I can see your point, and is definitely a multi-dimensional problem. Just for the record and for not getting misunderstood, my opinion and what I support is to break any artificial borders on the Internet, which means that on one hand a corps may choose to store the data wherever they think is better, but also prevent the corps from altering their service based on a persons location.
        10y ago