nor on the Government\u2019s future ability to require some data to be located onshore, where there is a good reason for it.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\nSo what does the TPP say and do?<\/h2>\n The relevant provisions are in the E-Commerce chapter, which contains Article 14, and the Government Procurement Chapter, which contains Article 15.<\/p>\n
In the E-Commerce Chapter, Article 14.13 focuses on the Location of Computing Services.<\/p>\n
In 14.13 (2), it creates a general obligation on the signatory countries that they will not require a business to use local computing facilities as a pre-condition to do business in that country. But, importantly, that obligation is sandwiched between two clauses that qualify that obligation.<\/p>\n
Most importantly, 14.13 (3) makes clear that businesses CAN be required to use local facilities if there are legitimate public policy reasons, provided that is not an unnecessarily heavy-handed means of achieving that policy objective.<\/p>\n
What is a legitimate public policy objective? Well, 14.13 (1) recognizes that countries have their own policies to ensure security and confidentiality.<\/p>\n
The Government Procurement chapter contains a National Treatment obligation in Article 15.4. In short, this obliges member countries to treat overseas providers of goods and services no less favourably than domestic providers. However, that only means the same conditions apply to all suppliers.<\/p>\n
Article 15.12 (7) says the obligation is not intended to prevent a country from applying conditions and technical specifications that limit storage of sensitive data to on-shore.<\/p>\n
So, the TPP is not, in Macquarie\u2019s view, the game changer for data residency some reporting suggested it would be. It does not throw out the ability for governments or businesses to make choices for good public policy reasons about where their sensitive data is stored.<\/p>\n
However, aside from the TPP, data sovereignty has for the first time become front page news around the world because the action has suddenly moved to the courts.<\/p>\n
A series of actions in the US and Europe have created great uncertainty about the obligations of those holding data, the appropriateness and effectiveness of the attempts to balance privacy against government access, and the extent and reach of the powers of governments and government agencies.<\/p>\n
First there was the US Department of Justice versus Microsoft case, where a US law enforcement agency has been seeking access to the data of a non-US citizen, created overseas and held overseas, through issuing a warrant issued and served in the US. Its rationale, which has so far been supported through the courts, is that the data is held by a US company and therefore falls within US jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
Then there was the decision by the European courts that the \u201csafe harbour\u201d data transfer agreement allowing European citizens\u2019 data to be transferred to the US was invalid because the US privacy protections were inadequate to meet European standards.<\/p>\n
And in the past three months has seen perhaps the most dramatically of all stories \u2013 the escalating stand-off between the technology sector and the FBI and Department of Justice over attempts to have Apple bypass a security feature on the iPhone that belonged to a new dead domestic terrorist.<\/p>\n
The FBI says it requires access to the data stored on the iPhone but needs Apple to disable a security feature to allow that to happen. The FBI wants to run a program to try any and all combinations of the PIN code that presently is preventing them from accessing the device. But a standard security feature on the phone would cause all data on the device to be wiped if 10 incorrect codes were attempted. The FBI wants Apple to remove this protection.<\/p>\n
Apple argues there is a line in the sand civil liberties principle at stake \u2013 governments should not be deliberately seeking to force companies to build security \u201cwork-arounds\u201d because, in the wrong hands, tremendous harm could be caused to Apple users. This is obviously a very vexed case and no one, including Apple, is accusing the FBI of being motivated by ill motives. However, the subtext to this, as it is to the Microsoft Department of Justice case, is that where the US leads, other governments are sure to follow.<\/p>\n
Microsoft\u2019s lawyer, referring to the idea that the US could reach into another country to access the data of someone who was using a US-owned service, was quoted as saying \u201cwe would go crazy if China did this to us\u201d. Similarly, those opposed to the FBI action against Apple have suggested China would demand similar access to security by-pass technologies if the FBI is successful.<\/p>\n
These actions and debates all go to the same issue Macquarie Telecom first raised in the context of the US Patriot Act years ago \u2013 jurisdictional reach is a real issue. Knowing who has legal access to your data, and what can you do are legitimate questions for businesses transitioning to the cloud.<\/p>\n
As I\u2019ve said before, some of those companies that are now most prominent in arguing that the US authorities are going too far then took a different position to ours in the past.<\/p>\n
Our view remains that the best thing the industry can do is accept that it is perfectly legitimate for people to prefer that some data is kept onshore and to provide products that do that. It should provide transparency about what services locate data where. It has always been Macquarie Telecom\u2019s view that this is good for cloud adoption. Transparency is a necessary element of a strong market.<\/p>\n
In the absence of information, people will jump to negative conclusions, and be ruled by fear of the unknown. That suspicion, once created, can be very hard to shift.<\/p>\n
Aidan Tudehope is the Managing Director of Government & Hosting at Macquarie Telecom. \u00a0Aidan presented the above blog at the 4th Annual Data Centre and Cloud Conference, Royal Pines Resort, Gold Coast, Qld \u00a0(March 2016).<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been the definition of a long, slow burn issue. Partly this is because is has taken so long \u2013 five years of negotiations \u2013 and partly because there are so many issues wrapped up in it. One issue that has been of interest to Macquarie Telecom has been its impact on […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":7133,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_oasis_is_in_workflow":0,"_oasis_original":0,"_relevanssi_hide_post":"","_relevanssi_hide_content":"","_relevanssi_pin_for_all":"","_relevanssi_pin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_unpin_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_keywords":"","_relevanssi_related_include_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_exclude_ids":"","_relevanssi_related_no_append":"","_relevanssi_related_not_related":"","_relevanssi_related_posts":"","_relevanssi_noindex_reason":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[13,12],"tags":[75,76,46,77,79,80,82,83],"class_list":["post-9220","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles","category-migrate","tag-asd-certified-cloud","tag-certified-cloud-services","tag-cloud-hosting","tag-cloud-solutions-for-government","tag-government-cloud","tag-govzone","tag-tpp","tag-trans-pacific-partnership"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
The TPP and the Future of Jurisdictional Reach - bet365 live casino games<\/title>\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\t \n\t \n\t \n