4 ms·

From the article: > Facebook promised to open a data centre in Canada to create jobs, in exchange for the federal government offering assurances that it would

From the article: > Facebook promised to open a data centre in Canada to create jobs, in exchange for the federal government offering assurances that it would not impose its jurisdiction over the company's non-Canadian data. The Canadians agreed to not regulate other countries data. This seems pretty reasonable. Why should the Canadian government regulate how an American tech company handles German data? It makes a lot more sense for each country to have jurisdiction over data from (1) its own citizens, (2) residents on its soil or (3) data physically stored on its soil. That this was a result of "lobbying" or "pressure" is supposed to rile us up, but this type of thing could not be more common in the political world. FB, one of the 10 most valuable publicly traded companies in the world, would be stupid not to engage in global lobbying.

Groxx 8y ago
It reads to me like 3 would apply here - they don't have jurisdiction over unrelated data stored elsewhere (else data-havens would not be a thing) by a company headquartered outside their country (AFAIK - IANAL). I read it as: FB wanted to store [whatever data they wanted] in Canada, and didn't want Canada to impose any rules on [outside-Canada data]. Basically they wanted a data-haven. Not all that surprising of an ask, but I don't think Canada does that in general.
braythwayt 8y ago
What do you think the phrase "non-Canadian data" means? From what you write, you appear to presume that "non-Canadian data" means data that is not about Canadian citizens anywhere in the world, not about businesses or individuals on Canadian soil, and not physically stored in Canada. I don't see anything in the article clarifying that. You may be right, but then again the discussion could have been about data that is physically stored in the data centre but is not about Canadian citizens or resident entities. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that what was being discussed was data stored in the data centre on Canadian soil, given the clue that what they wanted was the data-centre exempt from jurisdiction. If Canada was asserting jurisdiction over data not in the data centre, I would have expected the terms to be worded around seeking worldwide exemption from jurisdiction. JM2C.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

Groxx 8y ago

It reads to me like 3 would apply here - they don't have jurisdiction over unrelated data stored elsewhere (else data-havens would not be a thing) by a company headquartered outside their country (AFAIK - IANAL). I read it as: FB wanted to store [whatever data they wanted] in Canada, and didn't want Canada to impose any rules on [outside-Canada data]. Basically they wanted a data-haven. Not all that surprising of an ask, but I don't think Canada does that in general.

braythwayt 8y ago

What do you think the phrase "non-Canadian data" means? From what you write, you appear to presume that "non-Canadian data" means data that is not about Canadian citizens anywhere in the world, not about businesses or individuals on Canadian soil, and not physically stored in Canada. I don't see anything in the article clarifying that. You may be right, but then again the discussion could have been about data that is physically stored in the data centre but is not about Canadian citizens or resident entities. I don't know for sure, but I suspect that what was being discussed was data stored in the data centre on Canadian soil, given the clue that what they wanted was the data-centre exempt from jurisdiction. If Canada was asserting jurisdiction over data not in the data centre, I would have expected the terms to be worded around seeking worldwide exemption from jurisdiction. JM2C.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]