4 ms·

So, the reason is that the entirety of the customer data must be stored locally in India, rather than on a server located elsewhere[0]? Does anyone know why th

• frabcus 5y ago
  If I was running a large country, I'd want transactions to be entirely local for national security reasons. Generally, in the event of a world war, I wouldn't want it to be trivial for other countries to remotely cut off my whole economy.
  • ntrz 5y ago
    From the text of the rule: > There is no bar on processing of payment transactions outside India if so desired by the PSOs. However, the data shall be stored only in India after the processing. The complete end-to-end transaction details should be part of the data. So this only applies to the customer data, not the actual systems that do the transaction processing and verification. The systems that actually do the work could still be cut off from India, leaving them with nothing but a database of customer transactions.
  • seunosewa 5y ago
    How about just avoiding wars? Global interdependence of countries is beneficial for this reason. Also, India's military is no match for and unlikely to have any reason to fight the external countries where MasterCard's data is likely to be stored (US, UK, etc).
    • jessedhillon 5y ago
      In the case of MasterCard that might be true, but the law applies generally. It's not inconceivable that another piece of critical infrastructure could be provided by a country who has a data center in a more likely adversary, say, China. In general, the Indian approach is not to whitelist everything and then blacklist whatever specific exceptions become necessary, but the reverse. As for avoiding war: sure, but how should we conduct things until utopia arrives?
    • ncallaway 5y ago
      > How about just avoiding wars? Countries simply do not have the unilateral ability to avoid wars.
      • rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
        The easiest way to prevent war is to make it uneconomical -- like it was in the past. War should bankrupt a country. Years long fighting like we saw in the 20th century is a product of loose monetary policy. When a country can print itself out of debt (or more accurately, kick the can down the road for the next generation), war is inevitable. If we remove the ability to do this, a prolonged war becomes far less likely.
        • ncallaway 5y ago
          But, again, that's not something a country can unilaterally control. If a nation's neighbors have the capability to fight a years long war, but that same war would bankrupt the nation, then the The game theory of the situation (again, from an individual nation's perspective) means no one nation will "remove the ability to do this" unless there's a massive collective action.
        • qwytw 5y ago
          Have you heard about the 100, 70 and 30 years wars? The massive death toll and destruction in the world wars was largely a result of much more effective military technology. There was simply no way to kill as much people and destroy as much property in such a short time frame in any preceding wars. And I don't really see what a loose monetary policy could have anything to do with this. Before the 20th century countries rarely had the means to mobilize their economies by directing most of the output to the war effort, they had no capacity to enforce this and in any case there wasn't enough surplus produced to a wage total war without everyone starving to death and/or the central government collapsing.
• addicted 5y ago
  The GDPR didn’t give a 6 month timeline. And GDPR had a long transparent process that in addition to the official implementation time, gave companies a lot of time to see what sort of rules they would likely be working under even before it was approved. The worst government since liberalization, however, makes capricious rules, without input or deliberations, drops them on the world like they are a JayZ album, and then gives atrocious timelines for compliance. More often than not they will then backtrack on those rules once enough time has passed so people will forget how atrocious those rules are (like during COVID), or in some cases (such as demonetization), they will double down never mind the generational economic damage and direct death toll.
  • ngc248 5y ago
    >>> The GDPR didn’t give a 6 month timeline. This ruling came out in 2018 and they were given an extension until now, 3 years is sufficient enough to implement most things
• naruvimama 5y ago
  This applies to a critical infrastructure one of national security. GDPR is about privacy.