主權(quán)和數(shù)據(jù)本地化

1、THE C YBER PRO JE CT Sovereignty and Data LocalizationEmily WuThe Cyber ProjectBelfer Center for Science and International Affairs Harvard Kennedy School79 JFK StreetCambridge, MA 02138 HYPERLINK /TAPP /CyberStatements and views expressed in this report are solely those of the author and do not impl

2、y endorsement by Harvard University, Harvard Kennedy School, or the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.Design and layout by Andrew FaciniCopyright 2021, President and Fellows of Harvard College Printed in the United States of AmericaREP OR TJU LY 20 21 THE C YBER PRO JE CT Sovereign

3、ty and Data LocalizationEmily WuTable of Contents HYPERLINK l _bookmark0 Executive Summary 1 HYPERLINK l _bookmark1 Introduction 3 HYPERLINK l _bookmark2 Data sovereignty and its importance in the emerging technology HYPERLINK l _bookmark2 landscape 5 HYPERLINK l _bookmark3 Spotlight: Cloud computin

4、g 6 HYPERLINK l _bookmark4 Spotlight: 5G telecommunications 7 HYPERLINK l _bookmark5 Spotlight: Artificial Intelligence 8 HYPERLINK l _bookmark6 Data localization is used to assert data sovereignty 9 HYPERLINK l _bookmark7 Types of Data Localization Policies 11 HYPERLINK l _bookmark7 Local-only stor

5、ing, transmission, and processing 11 HYPERLINK l _bookmark8 Local copy required 12 HYPERLINK l _bookmark9 Narrower, conditional restrictions 13 HYPERLINK l _bookmark10 Reasons for Data Localization Policies 14 HYPERLINK l _bookmark10 Technical concerns 14 HYPERLINK l _bookmark11 Value concerns 17 HY

6、PERLINK l _bookmark12 How should policy makers respond? 19 HYPERLINK l _bookmark13 Conclusion 22 HYPERLINK l _bookmark14 Bibliography 23Adobe StockExecutive SummaryData localization policies impose obligations on businesses to store and process data locally, rather than in servers located overseas.

7、The adoption of data localization laws has been increasing, driven by the fear that a nations sovereignty will be threatened by their inability to exert full control over data stored outside their borders. This is particularly relevant to the US given its dominance in many areasof the digital ecosys

8、tem including artificial intelligence and cloud computing.Unfortunately, data localization policies are causing more harm than good. They are ineffective at improving security, do little to simplify the regulatory landscape, and are causing economic harms to the markets where they are imposed. In or

9、der to move away from these policies, the fear of sovereignty dilution must be addressed by alterna- tive means. This will be achieved most effectively by focusing on both technical concerns and value concerns.To address technical concerns, the US should:Enact a federal national privacy law to reduc

10、e the fears that foreign nations have about the power of US tech companies.Mandate privacy and security frameworks by industry to demonstrate the importance that US industry places on privacy and security, recognizing it as fundamental to their business success.Increase investment in cybersecurity t

11、o ensure that in a com- petitive market, the US has the best offering in both customer experience and security assuranceExpand multi-lateral agreements under CLOUD Act to help alleviate the concerns that data stored by US companies will be inaccessible to foreign governments in relevant to a crimina

12、l investigationTo address value concern:Take a collaborative approach to technology innovation with key allies, working together to facilitate technology development in a way that is safe, effective and in line with liberal and democratic values.Develop norms and standards around data use in collabo

13、ration with allies, particularly as they relate to privacy, security, the rule of law and human rights.1Make public and explicit commitments to criticize neocolo- nialism with respect to data to give developing countries, or those with less technological capabilities, confidence that the US condones

14、 data exploitation.Lawrence and Cordey, “The Case for Increased Transatlantic Cooperation on Artificial Intelligence.”IntroductionArtificial intelligence, advanced analytics, cloud computing, the Internet of Things are examples of emerging technologies that rely on or produce data. Whether used for

15、national security, business growth, fraud detection, or scientific discovery, the way data is collected, stored, used, and transferred can have a material impact on national security, industry growth, geopo- litical relationships and civil society. Access to data that is safe, secure, and stored in

16、a way that gives customers comfort and protection is a desire that stakeholders across this landscape share. This shared interest is motivating nations to implement data protection laws that try to balance security and domestic control with economic innovation and globalization.A category of such la

17、ws focuses on data localization. In general, these laws require data to be stored and processed domestically, with the ultimate aim of enhancing sovereign control over citizens data. These laws are primarily driven by concerns about foreign government interference, so their central objective is to c

18、urb foreign governments access rights to data stored outside of their jurisdiction. As these new data-dependent technol- ogies emerge, and our dependence on them in everyday life grows, fear of foreign governments accessing personal data (by request or by force) has deepened. Fear of falling behind

19、in technology development also drives these policies, with a secondary objective being to make it more difficult for foreign companies to operate in domestic markets.This paper will examine how data localization laws are used by govern- ments to safeguard sovereignty and preserve their ability to ov

20、ersee how citizens and inhabitants data is used. Unfortunately, rather than making data more secure, data localization laws have handicapped innovation, increased regulatory complexity, and perhaps even threatened security. Further, the US CLOUD Act has clarified that US tech companies are sub- ject

21、 to US laws no matter where in the world they are operating, or whose data they are storing. This means, for example, a US company storingEU data on EU soil would still be subject to access requests from the US Government. This substantially reduces the efficacy of data localization laws as a mechan

22、ism to protect data stored by US companies from US lawenforcement agencies because these companies remain within the jurisdic- tion of US law enforcement no matter where their servers may be located.In light of these limitations, a new data governance approach for policy makers that balances the des

23、ire for sovereignty with the need for global and cross-sectoral cooperation is proposed in this paper. The importance of national laws that demonstrate the US commitment to data privacy and security will be essential for maintaining and/or restoring trust and con- fidence that foreign nations have i

24、n doing business with the US. They will also help clarify the confusions that ultimately end up being costly for com- panies to overcome. As such, the focus of the paper will be primarily on the US but will draw on global experiences to illustrate concepts as needed.There are two critical elements t

25、o the CLOUD Act:The CLOUD Act clarifies that service providers are required to disclose all data in their possession, custody, or control, pursuant to lawful process, regardless of the location of the data.2 The Act amended the federal Stored Communications Act, to state that a criminal warrant serv

26、ed on a U.S.-based provider extended to all e-mails in scope regardless of where in the world the e-mails were located.3The CLOUD Act also makes it easier for foreign governments to request access to data stored by companies in the US. Previously, these requests were made through the Justice Departm

27、ent and required a warrant. Under the new legislation, foreign countries can request the data directly from the tech company, using a lower legal threshold than the proba-ble-cause standard required for a warrant.4Review, “Microsoft Ireland, the CLOUD Act, and International Lawmaking 2.0.”“US CLOUD

28、Act and International Privacy.”Ford, “Should Foreign Countries Be Allowed to Snoop on Data on American Soil?”Data sovereignty and its importance in the emerging technology landscapeGiven the vast amounts of data that emerging technologies both use and produce, exploring the way that nation states as

29、sert control over data on behalf of their citizens and inhabitants is increasingly necessary for inno- vation and national security alike. Known as data sovereignty, control over data is often claimed through assertions of geopolitical power, inter- national agreements about sovereignty recognition,

30、 and domestic policy creation.While the US is already in a strong position to claim such sovereignty based on its position as a geopolitical leader, foreign nationsboth allies and adversariesare anxious that the US (and Chinas) dominance in emerging technologies will be a threat to their own asserti

31、on of data sov- ereignty. Digital dominance is increasingly becoming synonymous with economic dominance, and such dominance comes with the power to infringe on the sovereignty of others. Further, concerns about a growing sense of neocolonial dependence on multinational tech companies5 is a motivatin

32、g force behind much of the proliferation of new data protection and privacy policies globally.An example of this colonialism threat is the introduction of Facebook Free Basics. This is a limited internet service that Facebook offers for free that serves the purposes of getting new consumers online a

33、nd eventually reliant on the internet. It also facilitates the collection of vast amounts of data on users, which can ultimately be used to feed AI technology. Ellery Biddle, an advocacy director of Global Voices said “Facebook is not introducing people to open internet where you can learn, create a

34、nd build things its building this little web that turns the user into a mostly passive consumer of mostly western corporate content. Thats digital colonialism.”6Torreblanca, “Europes Digital Sovereignty.”“Its Digital Colonialism.”Importantly, it is not just developing markets that fear foreign digit

35、al dom- inance. The EUs introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a clear example of a highly tech capable economy seeking to assert sovereignty and regain some digital independence. In an open letter to the President of the European Commission, Heads of Government from German

36、y, Denmark, Finland and Estonia wrote: “the dependencies and shortcomings in European digital capacities, skills, and technologies have become more apparent. A significant amount of digital value-added and innovation takes place outside Europe. Data has become a new currency that is mainly collected

37、 and stored outside Europe. And fundamental dem- ocratic values are under severe pressure in the global digital sphere. Now is the time for Europe to be digitally sovereign.”7To better understand the fears motivating assertions of sovereignty (often in direct opposition to both US tech companies and

38、 the regulatory author- ities these companies are subject to), it is useful to consider the ways in which a few key emerging technologies use, store, create or relate to data.Spotlight: Cloud computingBehind the many promises of emerging technologies there is a growing need for data storage and proc

39、essing which is increasingly being offered through cloud computing. Cloud computing services are highly efficient, easily scal- able, and extremely flexible. They offer services to customers ranging in size from governments to multinational companies to start-ups, with a pay-for- what-you use model

40、that makes the technology highly accessible.Sovereignty has traditionally meant control within geographical borders, but services like cloud computing are often delivered most efficiently (from a cost perspective) when data is free to flow between national borders. For public sector agencies in part

41、icular, the risk that data stored offshore could be accessed by foreign governments is a front-of-mind threat to their secu- rity. In order to assert and/or reclaim sovereignty, policies that restrict the business operations of data storage and processing companies are becom- ing very popular.Merkel

42、 et al., “Letter to COM President on Digital Sovereignty.”Spotlight: 5G telecommunications5G is the fifth generation of wireless network technology and operates largely in the cloud. It allows for the delivery of internet-based services at faster speeds, lower latency, and more capacity.8 The speed

43、of internetdelivery is particularly important for devices and technologies that rely on real-time data e.g., location-based services such as driverless cars.US Internet and telecommunications companies are already heavily invested in building out their 5G networks, motivated in large part to not los

44、e the arms race against China. Unlike other emerging technologies where the US is the clear leader (or at least has comparable market power to China), China is dominant in the 5G market. 5G has been a critical part of Chinas Digital Silk Road initiative9, which is focused on provision of communicati

45、ons technology and systems to the developing world. Asia and Africa are expected to account for 90% of the worlds population by 205010, and if China leads in the provision of essential technology services on these continents, then China is in the best position to dominant the dig- ital ecosystem.Thi

46、s threat of dominance is the main force behind the US rejection of Huawei and ZTE, who together account for 40% of global 5G infrastruc- ture.11 US intelligence agencies say equipment made by Chinese telecom companies are a national security threat; if China controls the infrastruc- ture, the Chines

47、e government will have access to data that traverses that infrastructure. The US policy response has been to invest in domestically owned infrastructure, reject Chinese suppliers, and encourage allies to do the same.“Cloud Computing and 5G.”“Competing with Chinas Digital Silk Road.”“68% of the World

48、 Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN | UN DESA | United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.”Benner, “Chinas Dominance of 5G Networks Puts U.S. Economic Future at Stake, Barr Warns.”Spotlight: Artificial IntelligenceAdvanced, accurate, and socially responsive A

49、I technology relies onhigh-quality, diverse and readily accessible datasets.12 Because AI learns from data, the wider and more diverse that data is, the more readily appli- cable the AI technology can be to our diverse world. If we feed AI data on just one community or one context, that AI technolog

50、y will develop bias. Because AI is already permeating many aspects of our daily lives, there is a pressing need for AI developers to have access to high quality training data that will enable the technology to obtain the necessary level of intelli- gence needed for real world application.Unfortunate

51、ly, foreign nations are concerned about the relative strength of the US position on AI development, and a bias towards data nationalism is developing as a result. There are growing concerns that AI dominant coun- tries will use data for only their advantage with little or no input from the nations a

52、nd peoples that the data is being sourced from. For some coun- tries, this threat is a form of modern colonialism.Lawrence and Cordey, “The Case for Increased Transatlantic Cooperation on Artificial Intelligence.”Data localization is used to assert data sovereigntyAn increasingly common way for a na

53、tion to assert data sovereignty, par- ticularly if the country is not in a dominant position of geopolitical power, is to pass data localization measures. Generally, governments want to claim sovereignty over their citizens data no matter where or by whom it is stored. In the strictest sense, forced

54、 data localization means data created within State borders must stay within those borders13.Domestic storage aims to increase control over citizen data by bringing decision making and access rights within jurisdictional boundaries. It also serves to put foreign companies at a disadvantage relative t

55、o domestic companies. It is generally a policy introduced at the government level that all organizations operating in that country must abide. Particularly in the course of criminal investigations or regulatory activity, access to this data can be important. Further, as citizens become increasingly

56、engaged in both technology products and their policies, political commitment to personal privacy can be persuasive at the ballot box. If data isnt stored or processed locally, there can be much confusion and concern about which sovereign nations laws should apply to that data in which circumstances.

57、 Data local- ization seeks to simplify this.“Data Sovereignty vs Data Residency vs Data Localization.”The increased number of data localization policies is a reflection of the fear that nations have of losing or diluting their data sovereignty.Figure 1: Increase in data localization measures globall

58、y (1960 - 2015)Source: ECIPE Digital Trade Estimates database14,15DeFilippo and Coleman, “Market Opportunities and Key Initiation Foreign Trade Restrictions.”Data originally sourced from ECIPE Digital Trade Estimates databaseTypes of Data Localization PoliciesData localization policies tend to fall

59、into three categories:Local-only storing, transmission, and processingThis generally means an obligation to locally manage data or as a pro- hibition of international data transfers.16 This is the strictest type of localization policy and is more likely to be descriptive of nations seeking broader c

60、ontrol over citizen activities.Example: RussiaUnder Russias Federal Law No. 242-FZ, operators must ensure the record- ing, systematization, accumulation, storage, adjustment (update, alteration), and retrieval of personal data of citizens of the Russian Federation will be performed through database