4 ms·

Knowing the government's of Russia ways of controlling the media and opposition, I understand and agree with those scared for personal freedoms. On the other ha

Knowing the government's of Russia ways of controlling the media and opposition, I understand and agree with those scared for personal freedoms. On the other hand, I would feel way better if similar law would be imposed in EU, so my data would stay within its borders and be protected by EU laws.

cromwellian 12y ago
Actually, the NSA has a greater power to spy on data on foreign soil than on domestic soil. Ironically, although the 'legal' channels for subpoenaing data with warrants exposes data in the US to government demands, there's at least in theory, some kind of oversight by the courts (although we know they rubber stamp everything). I think the idea that data held within your home country is 'safer' may be a false sense of security.
- cma 12y ago
  Except they have cross sharing agreements with MI6, we can't spy on our own citizens thoroughly, so you do it for us, you can't spy on your own citizens thoroughly so we'll do it for you. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
- izacus 12y ago
  There's that small difference of actually being able to influence our own governments and changing what they give to US. Which is still a huge difference than being exposed to mercy of an overseas government which gives us about the same consideration as it does to cattle and approves of torture.
  - mitochondrion 12y ago
    It's not even so much being able to influence our government versus one to which we are foreign non-residents, it's that at least the people over at the NSA, however much they may abuse their power, have some small consideration for me as a fellow citizen versus "just some German/Chinese/South African guy".
- nisa 12y ago
  * If you are an citizen of the United States. > I think the idea that data held within your home country is 'safer' may be a false sense of security. Widely deployed encryption is the only solution. The 'safe' EU data is monitored by the BND in Germany they send the data to the NSA. It's likely similar everywhere else.
briandear 12y ago
TLDR: it's unrealistic to require a company to follow every country's laws just because some of that country's citizens use a service based outside of that country. The concept of data being "stored" like it's a card in a library card catalog is an anachronism. The physical location is irrelevant. It's the policies and laws under which the companies must deal that's more important. Of course enforcing certain laws in certain countries is impossible if the company doesn't have a presence in that country. In that case, it's up to the user to decide if they agree to whatever terms of service are offered within the country I which those terms are enforceable through the contract law process. Ultimately if a Google user doesn't like the US law or terms of service offered, it's up to the customer to go to another service. It's unrealistic, not to mention crazy to force an Internet company to follow 170+ different country's laws when those laws are often contradictory. Instead, it might be good for an Internet company to have a statement that outlines what jurisdiction under which they reside in terms of enforcing terms of service agreements. Most have this contract language already, but to make it clear to the user would allow them to make informed choices about the services they use. The alternative if to wall off the internet by physical geography. So Google.com wouldn't work in France, only Google.fr. That regionalization of the Internet is a horrible idea. You end up with Google.cn if you do that. If you use an American service, it's expected that it follows American law. You, the user, are entering their place of business (virtual or not,) therefore their jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of record. If I travel to the U.S. and buy something at a store, EU consumer protections don't apply, nor should they. If I make a telephone order from a U.S. shop, they don't have to comply with European law; I came to them. That extrapolates to the virtual world as well. However, if a company does have a physical presence in a country, then obviously they are compelled to comply with local law. However that could be argued when it comes to online services -- just because WalMart has distribution centers in China doesn't mean that the WalMart in Nebraska has to follow Chinese law. Really I would argue for full and transparent disclosures AND I would support an Internet Privacy Treaty that provides reciprocity or equal protection between two countries. So a French Google user has the protections they expect but an American DailyMotion user has the protections they expect and claims could be mediated in either country. I am not a lawyer, nor a huge expert, but I do have some experience with my iCouch company (online therapy.) We have customers from the Middle East who see therapists based in the US, and it's explicit that the customer's interaction will be governed by the locale in which the therapist is located/licensed. It would be a virtual impossibility to have to conform with every country's laws.. We can't realistically stop visitors from certain places; should we be liable? Of course not. The visitor is the one that makes the choice to visit us or not. I am not as articulate about this as I would like, however one can see the maze that this starts to reveal. It's not a simple question of "where is the data stored."

cromwellian 12y ago

Actually, the NSA has a greater power to spy on data on foreign soil than on domestic soil. Ironically, although the 'legal' channels for subpoenaing data with warrants exposes data in the US to government demands, there's at least in theory, some kind of oversight by the courts (although we know they rubber stamp everything). I think the idea that data held within your home country is 'safer' may be a false sense of security.

cma 12y ago
Except they have cross sharing agreements with MI6, we can't spy on our own citizens thoroughly, so you do it for us, you can't spy on your own citizens thoroughly so we'll do it for you. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement
izacus 12y ago
There's that small difference of actually being able to influence our own governments and changing what they give to US. Which is still a huge difference than being exposed to mercy of an overseas government which gives us about the same consideration as it does to cattle and approves of torture.
- mitochondrion 12y ago
  It's not even so much being able to influence our government versus one to which we are foreign non-residents, it's that at least the people over at the NSA, however much they may abuse their power, have some small consideration for me as a fellow citizen versus "just some German/Chinese/South African guy".
nisa 12y ago
* If you are an citizen of the United States. > I think the idea that data held within your home country is 'safer' may be a false sense of security. Widely deployed encryption is the only solution. The 'safe' EU data is monitored by the BND in Germany they send the data to the NSA. It's likely similar everywhere else.

briandear 12y ago

TLDR: it's unrealistic to require a company to follow every country's laws just because some of that country's citizens use a service based outside of that country. The concept of data being "stored" like it's a card in a library card catalog is an anachronism. The physical location is irrelevant. It's the policies and laws under which the companies must deal that's more important. Of course enforcing certain laws in certain countries is impossible if the company doesn't have a presence in that country. In that case, it's up to the user to decide if they agree to whatever terms of service are offered within the country I which those terms are enforceable through the contract law process. Ultimately if a Google user doesn't like the US law or terms of service offered, it's up to the customer to go to another service. It's unrealistic, not to mention crazy to force an Internet company to follow 170+ different country's laws when those laws are often contradictory. Instead, it might be good for an Internet company to have a statement that outlines what jurisdiction under which they reside in terms of enforcing terms of service agreements. Most have this contract language already, but to make it clear to the user would allow them to make informed choices about the services they use. The alternative if to wall off the internet by physical geography. So Google.com wouldn't work in France, only Google.fr. That regionalization of the Internet is a horrible idea. You end up with Google.cn if you do that. If you use an American service, it's expected that it follows American law. You, the user, are entering their place of business (virtual or not,) therefore their jurisdiction is the jurisdiction of record. If I travel to the U.S. and buy something at a store, EU consumer protections don't apply, nor should they. If I make a telephone order from a U.S. shop, they don't have to comply with European law; I came to them. That extrapolates to the virtual world as well. However, if a company does have a physical presence in a country, then obviously they are compelled to comply with local law. However that could be argued when it comes to online services -- just because WalMart has distribution centers in China doesn't mean that the WalMart in Nebraska has to follow Chinese law. Really I would argue for full and transparent disclosures AND I would support an Internet Privacy Treaty that provides reciprocity or equal protection between two countries. So a French Google user has the protections they expect but an American DailyMotion user has the protections they expect and claims could be mediated in either country. I am not a lawyer, nor a huge expert, but I do have some experience with my iCouch company (online therapy.) We have customers from the Middle East who see therapists based in the US, and it's explicit that the customer's interaction will be governed by the locale in which the therapist is located/licensed. It would be a virtual impossibility to have to conform with every country's laws.. We can't realistically stop visitors from certain places; should we be liable? Of course not. The visitor is the one that makes the choice to visit us or not. I am not as articulate about this as I would like, however one can see the maze that this starts to reveal. It's not a simple question of "where is the data stored."