4 ms·
> as an Asia-Pacific entity, we felt we wanted a guarantee our data was in Asia-Pacific (preferably Australian) DC and under local law. I don't understand why
by dmurray 8y ago
> as an Asia-Pacific entity, we felt we wanted a guarantee our data was in Asia-Pacific (preferably Australian) DC and under local law.
I don't understand why you would want a generic Asia/Pacific location. It makes sense that you might want it to be in a particular jurisdiction for legal purposes, so I understand specifying Australia, in the same way other businesses specify EU or US or China. But why would you ever want to say "put our data somewhere in this hemisphere, Australia or Malaysia or Korea are all OK but don't let it be in Ireland or the USA"?
- rozenmd 8y agoProbably latency requirements?
- ggm 8y agoIdeally we wanted OZ. Google hadn't even come onshore at that point. We wanted in our hemisphere, we'd have settled for JP or SG probably. It wasn't on offer: Google didn't sell "put my data in my chosen jurisdiction" it sold "we put it where we want to, unless you are the US government in which case yes sir whatever you want sir" Being told they do "now" is great. 5+ years too late. And, the evidence about this is that Google cave to intercept requests far faster than microsoft do. Microsoft ask for strong evidence you have jurisdiction. Google don't make any public noise about this, and about how they act. I am not a hater btw. I use a lot of google product. (to latency: a lot of fiber in Asia goes odd paths. being in Japan or SG wasn't actually a good guarantee it would be faster than from the USA)