3 ms·
It is really interesting that there's even a debate over this. US and EU have long had similar policies in the name of "national interest" or "protecting the co
by darth_avocado 5y ago
It is really interesting that there's even a debate over this. US and EU have long had similar policies in the name of "national interest" or "protecting the consumers", but if other countries have similar policies, it suddenly becomes a negative thing.
I think the hard reality of it is data needs to be localized, to ensure companies comply with local laws. Every country has independent authority on how they want to run things, and whether it turns out to be good or bad, companies need to follow them.
- throw998877123 5y agoIt would have been okay if the country had a good privacy protection law. And a not-so-broken justice system. The legal system wears you out starting right from the troubles of filing a police report (when needed). Having worked with the govt, they are pretty lame on security and high on convoluted regulations and harassment. The rules are applied selectively. As a fact, the govt (unintentionally) leaks the citizen's data and then they absolutely deny and cover up stuff. And there is zero accountability. Their departments regularly access stuff without proper authorisation and then store/move it insecurely elsewhere.
- darth_avocado 5y agoBut data localization means the data is in a specific country, but the ownership still remains with the company. And I understand that the judicial systems can be flawed in different countries, but as a company, if you want to do business in a country, you still need to follow the law. To give you an example, companies operate in China, despite not having great labor laws or environmental protection laws, or the threat of facing the govt.'s wrath any moment. That's because they want to do business in that country. It's the same with any company or country.