[governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership

[Marie GEORGES]

Yes Parminder and others

Yes the Patriot Act target all "US enterprises", where ever then operate.... 

Some other ideas...
Is it "fair" that a State  "cares" (accesses or other) about  data which have no other territorial link than passing through it ?   without any legal cooperation with the State which has the territorial link with the activity at stake?

Would it be interesting to use those parts of the following commercial  cases (which are  still  not  satisfactory  from other angles than those quoted bellow)
- Years ago (in the 90s), in the case of Galileo (a System for Information Reservation "SIR") which servers were transferred from UK to East of US, along with the data territory location theory, US asked  that no flight to Cuba could be on the server (because it was forbidden to fly from USA to to Cuba...). 
Once it was established that no   flight from US to Cuba could be matter of seat's reservation , the US government accepted that  data on flights to Cuba (from elsewhere than USA)  could remain in the servers  (with the aim of air companies and agencies offering  seats reservation from elsewhere than USA).......
At that time there was no question about getting PNR's data by US...and further when US requested the PNR data,  EU negotiated that any how the data on persons not going to USA could not be accessed from EU Air companies through System of air reservation. It also asked that the data on persons going to US should be pushed by the system to US authorities and not be pulled (directly accessed to by those authorities)

- After  the SWIFT case was revealed, EU took back to a european country the servers/back up on which are processed the financial transactions not having a link with US

There is a "legal" activity on electronic war going on around US and NATO...http://www.nowandfutures.com/large/Tallinn-Manual-on-the-International-Law-Applicable-to-Cyber-Warfare-Draft-.pdf

Not yet any such international initiative on world electronic surveillance nor on drones (either for surveillance or to kill... 
We cannot go on like this...
Marie

Le 24 juin 2013 à 14:29, parminder a écrit :

> 
> 
> Hi All
> 
> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov.   You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region.....
> 
> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside.  (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.)
> 
> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? 
> 
> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov?
> 
> 
> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies.....
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
> 
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>     http://www.igcaucus.org/
> 
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130624/38e0e436/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t