Arthur Laprès, trans.); Tribunal de grande instance [TGI] [ordinary court of original jurisdiction] Paris, Nov. Efforts to keep data within national borders have gained traction in the wake of revelations of widespread electronic spying by United States intelligence agencies. Such intelligence gathering is hardly limited to the United States, of course. Sanger, David Barboza & Nicole Perlroth, (July 4, 2014, ), (noting that Russia’s “legal measure is widely seen as a response to reports about the intrusive surveillance practices of the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK’s GCHQ”); Thomas K. 14, 2013), that India’s Deputy National Security Advisor has reportedly sought “ways to route domestic Internet traffic via servers within the country,” and quoting an official who said that “[s]uch an arrangement would limit the capacity of foreign elements to scrutinise intra India traffic”).As the argument goes, placing data in other nations jeopardizes the security and privacy of such information.
The issue is critical to the future of international trade and development, and even to the ongoing struggle between democracy and totalitarianism.
Data localization threatens the possibility of outsourcing services, whether to Bangalore, Accra, Manila, or even Silicon Valley.
Iran seeks to develop an Internet free of Western influences or domestic dissent.
The Australian government places restrictions on health data leaving the country.
We define “data localization” measures as those that specifically encumber the transfer of data across national borders.