5 ms·

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 w

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.
      - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
        I am advocating hard monetary policy (ala a gold standard, a bitcoin standard) as a method for disincentivizing war. When you cannot replace the capital spent on war via inflation, war is less likely to occur. I acknowledge this is a fringe philosophy, but time will tell.
- DesiLurker 5y ago
  >How about just avoiding wars? that's a silly remark. are you suggesting that countries can simply avoid wars and accept the consequences just because some credit cards will stop working ? edit: formatting
  - qwytw 5y ago
    Yes, if they believe that the cost of waging the war would outweigh anything that they might gain even if they win it. Why would any two countries wage a war against each other if their governments knew that both countries economies (and most of their capacity to produce military material) would immediately collapse?

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.
    - rfd4sgmk8u 5y ago
      I am advocating hard monetary policy (ala a gold standard, a bitcoin standard) as a method for disincentivizing war. When you cannot replace the capital spent on war via inflation, war is less likely to occur. I acknowledge this is a fringe philosophy, but time will tell.
DesiLurker 5y ago
>How about just avoiding wars? that's a silly remark. are you suggesting that countries can simply avoid wars and accept the consequences just because some credit cards will stop working ? edit: formatting
- qwytw 5y ago
  Yes, if they believe that the cost of waging the war would outweigh anything that they might gain even if they win it. Why would any two countries wage a war against each other if their governments knew that both countries economies (and most of their capacity to produce military material) would immediately collapse?