4 ms·

I think that "high mobility across borders" is an assumption based on existing trade regulations. From recent developments it's clear countries can and do force

I think that "high mobility across borders" is an assumption based on existing trade regulations. From recent developments it's clear countries can and do force companies to do things they don't want, and companies will do it because they can't or won't lose access to consumers in those markets. For example, Apple has begun storing Russian user data in Russia in compliance with Russian data storage laws (https://venturebeat.com/2019/02/01/apple-will-reportedly-store-russian-user-data-locally-possibly-decrypt-on-request/ https://venturebeat.com/2019/02/01/apple-will-reportedly-sto...), and Google is still working on its censored search engine in China. Of course, if nobody else does this, this means you may have older software on your systems or less priority in development roadmaps or whatever as your country is an edge case, and you can probably say goodbye to market leadership and have to coast on your existing advantages. However, if everybody begins to cartelize the Internet, you may not lose as much in comparison to everybody else, since you will no longer be the edge case but the common case, and it will be a bad time to start a company or store data anywhere you go at any time. Companies will simply have to live with the geopolitical reality. In this sense, the Internet devolves into a suboptimal Nash equilibrium, where everybody has data localization laws and nobody will want to loosen up because storing your citizen's information on servers in another country will leave your citizens vulnerable. If this happens, the large homogeneous markets with a single language, government, and economy (U.S/China) may have an advantage. This is sad, and I hope they reverse this law. An open Internet is good for economic and societal dynamism (and as a civilization is tautological to organized chaos, slowing that down weakens said civilization), and I wouldn't know how to work backwards to where the Internet should be. In the meantime, maybe this will lift some open source, decentralized communications means past some threshold of viability.

lsiebert 8y ago
The Trump Administration also passed a law that affects companies that store data overseas so that they can get that data, after big companies fought such subpoenas.
- coolspot 8y ago
  The case[0] started on Obama watch though. What happens now is that after many appeals it goes to the supreme court. [0] - https://mashable.com/2014/06/12/microsoft-u-s-government-data-foreign-servers/#qYJesfHDogqd https://mashable.com/2014/06/12/microsoft-u-s-government-dat...
bad_user 8y ago
> Apple has begun storing Russian user data in Russia in compliance with Russian data storage laws I don't see how this is inherently bad. First of all Russia's intelligence agencies get access to any data belonging to Russian citizens anyway, simply because those citizens are under Russian legislation. I don't know the details, however note that the GDPR also imposes restrictions on exporting the data of EU citizens outside the EU. For example exports are only allowed in countries or territories that have enough safeguards for the protection of that data. This is important for privacy, for example if our local security agencies mishandle my data, I can sue them, I can vote for the opposition, I can convince other people to do the same, etc, however if a foreign agency mishandles my data, like those of Australia, I can do absolutely nothing about it. And from the state's point of view, having access to the data of your citizens is also a matter of national security. I can definitely see why a rival of the USA wouldn't want the data of its citizens stored on servers located in the USA. --- Companies that want access to the Australian market will succumb to Australian demands of course. The problem for Australia however is that their local companies will get hurt in the international marketplace. For example Fastmail, which competes with Google by promising better privacy, is now in a very awkward situation of having to explain how this bill is affecting them and what they are doing about it. In a market dominated by Google, hurting your local companies that compete with Google is downright stupid and will have an effect on their economy.

lsiebert 8y ago

The Trump Administration also passed a law that affects companies that store data overseas so that they can get that data, after big companies fought such subpoenas.

coolspot 8y ago
The case[0] started on Obama watch though. What happens now is that after many appeals it goes to the supreme court. [0] - https://mashable.com/2014/06/12/microsoft-u-s-government-data-foreign-servers/#qYJesfHDogqd https://mashable.com/2014/06/12/microsoft-u-s-government-dat...

bad_user 8y ago

> Apple has begun storing Russian user data in Russia in compliance with Russian data storage laws I don't see how this is inherently bad. First of all Russia's intelligence agencies get access to any data belonging to Russian citizens anyway, simply because those citizens are under Russian legislation. I don't know the details, however note that the GDPR also imposes restrictions on exporting the data of EU citizens outside the EU. For example exports are only allowed in countries or territories that have enough safeguards for the protection of that data. This is important for privacy, for example if our local security agencies mishandle my data, I can sue them, I can vote for the opposition, I can convince other people to do the same, etc, however if a foreign agency mishandles my data, like those of Australia, I can do absolutely nothing about it. And from the state's point of view, having access to the data of your citizens is also a matter of national security. I can definitely see why a rival of the USA wouldn't want the data of its citizens stored on servers located in the USA. --- Companies that want access to the Australian market will succumb to Australian demands of course. The problem for Australia however is that their local companies will get hurt in the international marketplace. For example Fastmail, which competes with Google by promising better privacy, is now in a very awkward situation of having to explain how this bill is affecting them and what they are doing about it. In a market dominated by Google, hurting your local companies that compete with Google is downright stupid and will have an effect on their economy.