3 ms·
Nothing in your comment invalidates these simple points: 1. If it's encrypted, it doesn't matter where it's stored. 2. If it's not encrypted, it can be easily
by kspacewalk2 5y ago
Nothing in your comment invalidates these simple points:
1. If it's encrypted, it doesn't matter where it's stored.
2. If it's not encrypted, it can be easily stored in country X, processed in country X, but routed via SnoopHub in country Y. Country Y loves surveilling and is very happy about this state of affairs.
>I have absolutely no doubt that financial, legal and health records should simply not leave the local legal jurisdiction without consent and a few more things.
A very common attitude, usually held by people who "geographize" that which is not geographic in nature - the Internet.
- jollybean 5y ago1) Your assertion that 'the data would be encrypted' is false. There's no reason to believe that Visa/MC would simply use 'America' as a based to host dumb, encrypted data which enters and leaves the the US fully opaque. That would be pointless. Visa/MS are using services hosted in the US which will process customer data. 2) Statement #2 is also false. There is no arbitrary way for the US to snoop on data that doesn't flow through the US. For a whole variety of reasons - legal, operational, technical, political, cost etc.. Surely it can be done in a limited way, but at a level nowhere near the domestic capability. 3) Finally, you're statement on "geographizing" is also false. Data, encrypted or not - falls under legal jurisdiction of the 'nation / geography' it's in, and this has many significant consequences. It makes a corporation subject to local laws, regulations, liabilities etc.. The internet is very geographic in nature.