DATA LOCALIZATIONA CHALLENGE TO GLOBAL COMMERCE
AND THE FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION

September 2015

[THIS PAGE IS LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Data localization measures – regulations requiring companies to store and process data on servers
physically located within national borders – are increasing around the world. These laws pose a growing
threat to the information technology sector and beyond, with the potential to cause companies towithdraw operations from key markets, harm Internet users, and further fragment the global Internet.
This paper explores data localization developments in the European Union, Russia and Brazil, and offers
thoughts on the best routes to reverse current trends.
Five underlying issues are central to understanding the global growth of data localization measures. The
first, and most fundamental, is a simple contradiction – the Internet is global but regulation is local. The
past decade of developments in cyberspace has clearly shown that the vision of the Internet as aborderless medium, somehow beyond the reach of national authorities, is out of line with reality. In the
midst of rapidly changing conceptions of national security, privacy and commerce in the digital age,governments have increased their efforts to exert control over information both inside and flowing
across their borders.
Second, governing cyberspace—unlike other global challenges-- requires the constant cooperation of
the private sector, a broad array of NGOs, and nation states. In particular, large firms holding vastquantities of data about consumers must first comprehend and then confront a mix of global andnational regulations. Governments, meanwhile, struggle with how to induce cooperation fromcompanies that control the data and means of access. In order to maintain the free flow of informationthat drives commerce, government and the private sector must at times act together.
Third, people around the world have awakened to the vulnerability of personal information in the digitalage. Whether through cyberattacks from rogue actors, espionage from foreign governments, or the useof personal information by companies for commercial purposes, traditional definitions of private
information no longer hold true. In some regions, citizens have pressured their governments to wrest
information back under their control. Driven by these concerns, many countries are seeking to assert
physical control over digital information – and data localization has become a means to achieve thisgoal.
Fourth, data localization measures are a symptom of so-called “data protectionism,” a new twist on the
traditional desire of governments to promote homegrown industry. But this trend – magnified by thevision of expanded benefits in the global economy – poses a practical contradiction. On the one hand,data localization is meant to promote short-term economic development through the construction of
expensive data centers and the creation of a limited number of high-paying technical jobs. On the other
hand, the disruption caused by requiring companies to store information within national borders canhave a severe economic impact across sectors, leading to a reduction in foreign investment.
Finally, a lack of natural coalitions to combat data localization hinders efforts to roll back the regulatorytide in many countries. In autocratic nations, localization measures are used to control information,
stifle the voices of advocates of free expression, and strangle political dissent. In other regions, including
Europe and Latin America, concerns over foreign surveillance and privacy have united the left and right,
giving a major boost to proponents of localization laws. Foreign firms have been strong opponents ofdata localization, but to date domestic firms have not stepped up in defense of their own self-interest.
Those voices are perhaps the most critical to turn back the wave of data localization.

Albright Stonebridge Group | 3

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

Failure to take action will place companies and NGOs in the unenviable position of being forced tochoose between abandoning key markets or complying with regulations that will harm their customers
and their economic interests. More important, companies and NGOs could become complicit in theactivities of authoritarian regimes, and held responsible in the eyes of the public for the fates ofindividuals and groups whose data is seized, hijacked, or manipulated by regimes that value neither free
expression nor privacy.
Halting this trend will not be easy as long as governments around the world continue to view the freeflow of information as a political threat. A new path forward, based on a nuanced understanding of whatis driving these measures, is necessary to slow the advance of data localization.

Albright Stonebridge Group | 4

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

GLOBAL SPREAD OF DATA LOCALIZATION*

COLOR

STRENGH OF MEASURESCOUNTRIES

Strong: Explicit requirements that data must be stored
on servers within the country.

Brunei, China, Indonesia,
Nigeria, Russia, Vietnam

De Facto: Laws that create such large barriers to thetransfer of data across borders that they effectively act
as data localization requirements.

European Union

Partial: Wide range of measures, including regulations
applying only to certain domain names and regulations
requiring the consent of an individual before data
about them is transferred internationally.

Belarus, India, Kazakhstan,
Malaysia, South Korea

Mild: Restrictions on international data transfers undercertain conditions.

Argentina, Brazil, Colombia,
Peru, Uruguay

Sector-specific: Tailored to specific sectors, including
healthcare, telecom, finance, and national security.

Australia, Canada, New Zealand,
Taiwan, Turkey, Venezuela

None: No known data localization laws.

Remaining Countries*Data localization laws, by their nature, are difficult to precisely categorize, and are constantly
changing. This map is ASG’s best assessment of current regulations at the time of publication.

Albright Stonebridge Group | 5

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

REGIONAL ANALYSISCountries in nearly every region of the world (see map, page 5) have taken a growing number of steps tocontrol information flowing across their borders. These measures vary widely in both scope andintensity, including strong and explicit requirements for all data to be stored within a country’s
boundaries; rules restricting the flow of data across borders that result in de facto localization; and more
limited measures focusing on specific sectors.
Though the spread of data localization is a global trend, the details, motivations, and scope of thesemeasures are unique to each country. The following case studies – the European Union (EU), Russia, andBrazil – illustrate how data localization laws are being used around the world: to expand national
understandings of privacy and other Internet norms beyond a nation’s boundaries; to exert politicalauthority by controlling information; and to assert power in the face of technological dominance of U.S.
companies.

EUROPEAN UNIONIn Brussels, officials have justified data localization as part of broader efforts by the European Union andnational governments to regain control of information owned by U.S. multinational companies andsubject to the prying eyes of the U.S. government. Complex compliance requirements, driven by a webof recent court decisions and potential new regulations, may cause companies to believe they have no
choice but to relocate server infrastructure in Europe. The key challenge in the near future for U.S.
companies and others will be to make certain that the European framework stays within the continentand does not leak beyond the European Union.
Political momentum for data privacy grew in 2013 after Edward Snowden revealed U.S. National
Security Administration (NSA) programs to monitor European citizens and political leaders, including
taps on the phones of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande. The
disclosure of these programs shifted opinions in Europe about the protection of digital information,raised suspicions about U.S. companies and their possible cooperation with the U.S. government, andprodded European officials to act.
The post-Snowden EU Commission, led by Jean Claude Juncker, has elevated privacy issues to the top of
its agenda and has created new positions and institutions focusing on issues surrounding data storageand ownership. The Commissioner for the Digital Economy, Günther Oettinger, has been particularly
blunt about his desire to wrest control of information from foreign entities, saying in February that, “TheAmericans are in the lead, they’ve got the data, the business models and so the power.”1
At the top of Commissioner Oettinger’s agenda is to update the European Union’s “data protection
framework,” created in 1995, which codified the protection of personal information as a right ofEuropean citizens. The updated regulations, which have been under negotiation since 2012, could
expand the jurisdiction of all EU data protection requirements to include any company that offers
services to EU citizens, regardless of whether the company has a physical presence in Europe. This new
directive, which Commissioner Oettinger hopes to finalize by the end of the 2015 legislative session,
could force international Internet and technology companies to work within Europe’s conception of data
privacy.

Albright Stonebridge Group | 6

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF DATA LOCALIZATION
Data localization can have significant consequences in a global economy in which the Internet drives
economic growth and enables commerce for industries far beyond the information technology sector.
By adding restrictions on how and where data is stored or transferred, data localization poses afundamental threat to the free flow of information across borders and the maintenance of global
supply chains. Such regulations not only affect email communication, personal records, and social
media services, but also limit access to information on which the manufacturing and the service
economies depend.
The temptation to pursue data localization measures to stimulate local and national economies isunderstandable. Data centers, which often house more than 100,000 individual servers, cost an
average of $43 million to construct in the United States.2 Experts estimate that advances in cloudcomputing will more than triple worldwide data traffic over the next five years. Such predictions havecreated an expectation that hundreds of new data centers will need to be built, with thousands ofhigh-paying jobs to support them.
But experience to date in both Europe and the United States indicates that while construction of data
centers creates employment opportunities, they are relatively short-lived. For example, only 50 people
are needed to support a $1 billion mega-data center built by Apple in the small town of Maiden, North
Carolina.3 Visions of years of enormous property tax benefits are outweighed by the incentives that
local governments are required to pay to lure companies to locate in their jurisdiction and by the needto subsidize the large amount of electricity required to run a data center.
On a macro basis, studies indicate that data localization regulations can have damaging long-term
consequences. Potential disruptions in information flows cause uncertainty among companies andleads to lower levels of foreign investment. In addition to its impact on businesses, localization tends
to reduce services and increase prices for domestic consumers.
The European Centre for International Political Economy examined the overall impact of localization
measures in seven countries – Brazil, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Korea, and Vietnam– and found negative impacts on GDP and foreign investment. The study found that localization
regulations cost EU citizens an estimated $193 billion per year, due in part to higher domestic prices,and that Vietnam’s strict 2013 data localization requirement has reduced its GDP by 1.7 percent.4

This new data protection framework would be added to current restrictions limiting the flow of
information out of the European Union. Under current rules, data on EU citizens can only be sent tonational jurisdictions that the Commission has found have “adequate protections” for storing data, or toforeign companies who have contractually agreed to protections. The United States, for example, is not
currently considered to have such protection; only through a separately negotiated “Safe Harbor”
agreement can companies in the U.S. process data on EU citizens. These companies must also agree to aseries of more strict data protections.

Albright Stonebridge Group | 7

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

As a result of the Snowden revelations, there have been calls for Europe to drop the Safe Harboragreement, or at least reform it to ensure greater protections for EU citizens. The European Court ofJustice (ECJ) is currently considering the issue, and on September 23 the ECJ’s advocate general foundthat the Safe Harbor agreement fails to adequately protect information on EU citizens when it is stored
and processed in the United States.5 While this opinion is nonbinding, it indicates that Safe Harbor as it
currently exists is likely to be revisited – adding to the uncertainty for companies that rely on theagreement to transfer data across the Atlantic. Changes to Safe Harbor could result in effectively
requiring data localization by prohibiting European citizen data from entering the U.S.

Implications of the “right to be forgotten”
This is not the first time the ECJ has taken a bold stance on data privacy. In 2014, the court ruled thatcitizens had a “right to be forgotten” – that is, the right to petition search engine providers to remove
links to information about them that are found to be “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.”6
Following the decision, search engines worked with governments to develop standards for judging andremoving search results according to these criteria. To date, Google has evaluated nearly one million
links and removed more than 40 percent of them from its European domains (for example, .de forGermany and .fr for France).7
Now, the “right to be forgotten” has led to a new twist on data regulations and jurisdiction. French
regulators have mandated that when Google removes materials under the “right to be forgotten”
regime, it must do so not only in the European Union but throughout all its domains, including
Google.com, the global service most frequently accessed by users in the United States and around theworld. On September 21, Google lost its appeal to France’s privacy administration, the Commission
Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL). It remains to be seen whether the authority will levy
financial penalties against companies that do not abide by the regulations.
By attempting to extend the European standard, the French could give credence and credibility to data
regimes – including harsh data localization measures – propounded by far less democratic governments.
This could also create a dangerous precedent, where national governments each try to impose local laws
in cyberspace, creating overlapping and contradictory mandates for Internet companies.

National regulations
The jurisdictional issues resulting from privacy regulations such as the right to be forgotten illustrate thechallenge that the region faces when considering more strict data localization requirements. As the EU
attempts to unify data protection measures, individual national regulations imposing data localization
could take hold. The most stringent of these proposals have not yet gained significant traction inlegislatures, but they reflect the growing desire of many Europeans for increased government action toprotect information.
Individual governments have also begun to test data localization as a tool to protect information. In
Germany, for example, Angela Merkel has publicly supported initiatives to create a “pan-European
network,” isolating email and telephone communications originating in Europe. This year Berlin alsoestablished a government cloud infrastructure (the “Bundes-cloud”) as part of its plan to consolidate IT
infrastructure and localize government data by 2022. The German Interior Ministry described theBundes-cloud, which is scheduled to begin operating at the end of 2018, as a reaction to “more andAlbright Stonebridge Group | 8

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

more IT companies processing and storing data in the Internet, outside of our networks and outside ofGermany.”8Europe faces a crucial decision point as it considers new region-wide data protection directive. As the EU
Commission reviews issues related to the updated privacy framework, it will be important to monitor for
threats including explicit data localization requirements; regulations in specific nations that could spread
across the region; and increased restrictions on data transfer outside of the European Union. These
requirements could result in significant economic damage.

Economic consequences
The growing array of regulations and court decisions strengthening data protection and privacy acrossEurope could have significant long-term economic costs. An analysis by the European Centre forInternational Political Economy found if the EU were to implement proposed data protection measures,
GDP and foreign investment would decline by nearly one-half of one percent and four percent,respectively.9 Member nations that enact strict data localization requirements that go beyond the basic
data protection directive could further wound their economies.
Localization measures will also prove costly to burgeoning start-ups and mid-sized companies, which
rely on leasing or renting server space from larger enterprises to develop new technologies and sell
services and products. In addition, measures that restrict data or increase the difficulty of navigatingcomplicated privacy regulations could further dampen the prospects of the European technology
industry. According to a study by the Business Roundtable, an association of U.S. CEOs, data localization
measures will, “result in a slowing of technological innovation and prevent companies from offeringcertain products and services, consequently dampening economic growth.”10
In addition, efforts to isolate European data could fundamentally alter the architecture of the Internet,
which has long favored technical efficiency over political considerations. If increasing regulations drive
the construction of additional data centers in Europe, the resulting inefficient patchwork system would
restrict information flows across borders. This could facilitate the so-called “balkanization” of theInternet, increasing barriers to integration with the global digital economy.

RUSSIAIn Russia, the control of information – and strict data localization in particular – has been part and parcelof a comprehensive crackdown on political dissent and the perceived threat of foreign meddling in
Russia's domestic politics. In his attempt to regulate U.S. firms and others, President Vladimir Putin has
capitalized on a growing patriotic sentiment and sense that Russia is once again beset by foreign
enemies in the wake of the crisis in Ukraine. In recent months, however, politics appears to be giving
way to the practical economics of the situation.
Since Putin's return to the Kremlin in May 2012, Russian lawmakers have enacted a number of measures
aimed at curbing outside influence over the country's economic and political life. Recent pressure totighten data localization regulations arose in this context and fit within an overall campaign to curb
domestic political activity, limit free expression, intimidate political opponents, restrict foreign NGOs
and foundations, and impose foreign ownership caps on media enterprises.

Albright Stonebridge Group | 9

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

DATA SEIZURE, HUMAN AND CORPORATE RISK
Data localization rules, because they often give authorities the ability to seize personal information,
not only pose a threat to citizens but also to companies operating within those nations. Perhaps
nothing better illustrates the possible impact of these laws than the 2005 jailing of the Chinesedissident, Shi Tao. The case resulted in a lengthy jail sentence for the accused and reputational
damage to the American Internet giant Yahoo!.
In 2005, Chinese authorities demanded that Yahoo! – which was operating in China with a local
partner, as required – turn over personally identifiable information about a dissident lawyer, Shi Tao.
Shi had reportedly distributed a Communist party document, which directed journalists not to reporton certain aspects of the anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. As a result of theinvestigation, Shi was sentenced to ten years in prison for divulging “state secrets.”
Backlash against Yahoo! in the United States and elsewhere was swift and harsh. Media outlets
closely covered the developments, the prisoner’s family and anti-China groups filed a lawsuit against
Yahoo!, and international NGOs called for an explanation of the company’s involvement. Shi wasdeemed a political prisoner by many human rights organizations, and a Congressional investigation
was launched. At one hearing Congressman Tom Lantos told Yahoo! co-founder Jerry Yang, “While
technologically you are giants, morally you are pygmies.” 11This case was one impetus for the creation of the Global Network Initiative, an alliance of companies,
NGOs, and investors working to protect privacy and Internet freedom. In its wake, Yahoo! created abusiness and human rights program advocating for free expression and privacy, a human rights fund
for the legal defense of dissidents, and an annual human rights and transparency report.
Ten years later, the Shi Tao case still casts a long shadow. By forcing data to be stored within acountry’s border, new laws allow local police and public security personnel to physically seize
machines on which data is stored. In a worst-case scenario, authorities could force a foreign company
to turn over records that could implicate individuals who had participated in protests or other acts ofcivil defiance. Western human rights groups, in turn, would no doubt accuse companies of complicity
with these acts of authoritarian regimes.

Since 2007, Russia has imposed data protection measures similar to those found in other parts ofEurope. Those requirements ensure that users must consent before companies transfer their personal
information, and that consumers be notified in the case of a data breach. In addition, foreign companies
operating in Russia have struggled with a heavy bias shown toward firms founded in the country, which
follow the rules without question. Russia has also passed “right to be forgotten” legislation, whichcomes into effect on January 1, 2016. Each of these measures reflects the growing number of attempts
by the Russian government to assert political authority over the rapidly growing Internet sector.

Current legislation
The latest legislation – the 242-FZ law, which went into effect September 1, 2015 – adds a specific data
localization requirement to this existing data protection framework. The new regulation requires

Albright Stonebridge Group | 10

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

“personal data operators” to collect, store, and process any data about Russian users in databases inside
the country and to inform Russian authorities of the location of their data centers. In addition, the law
provides authorities easier access to information and imposes harsh penalties on non-compliant
companies. Finally, it restricts Russian users’ access to any website that violates the nation’s dataprotection laws.
In the six months leading up to the law’s implementation, which included a meeting between Westernbusiness leaders and President Putin, the government suggested that it was receptive to complaints
raised by companies operating in Russia. Uncertainty over the definition of personal data and the scopeof the law dominated the talks between Russian authorities and foreign Internet companies. Foreigncompanies also questioned whether the new law would apply to businesses that do not maintain aphysical presence in the country. A great many Russian firms also raised concerns about the potential
disruption that the measures might cause average citizens, for example, who travel overseas. Adding to
the confusion, authorities appeared to give some social media companies an exemption, saying theinformation they store would not qualify as “personal information.”
Nevertheless, Russia’s media regulator and telecom oversight agency, Roskomnadzor, decided to move
forward without significant changes to the law. In September Roskomnadzor confirmed the move, butsuggested it was beyond the agency's capabilities to monitor compliance effectively. As of this writing,the latest indication is that even companies with no physical presence in the country will be held to therequirements of the new legislation. Authorities have pledged to check the compliance record of any
company processing personal data in Russia.
Well-connected interests, including many longtime associates of President Putin, support the law.
Among them are the law enforcement and national security communities, who see the law as a tool toreduce Russia’s vulnerability to Western pressure and economic sanctions. In addition, some oligarchs
and large Russian IT firms have invested heavily in building server farms, creating a de facto commercial
lobby that supports full implementation of the law. Other players in the Kremlin's political operations
see the new requirements as a potential tool that can limit the reach of social media platforms, civilsociety, and foreign NGOs in the run-up to next year’s parliamentary elections.
Russian Internet ombudsman Dmitry Marinichev indicated that a new round of talks between thegovernment and IT businesses may occur at the end of 2015. If these talks take place, they could be an
important dialogue for international companies struggling to maintain operations in the country.

Going forward
There are two possible paths that Russia will take moving forward. In one scenario, hard-liners prevail,the law takes full effect, and over time companies will either try to navigate its strict requirements or
decide to leave the market. How far the government will go in trying to enforce this regulation remains
to be seen, although it is unlikely that Moscow will try to enforce the requirements strictly within thenext year. In a worst-case scenario, authorities would invoke the law, use data to identify activists, anddetain or jail them.
A second possibility is that pragmatic voices will prevail and compliance with the law will remain halfhearted yet highly arbitrary. The rationale behind this would likely be economic, as a strict
interpretation of the legislation would be damaging to the Russian economy and the burgeoning IT
sector, which has begun to demonstrate its value to an economy dominated by the energy and raw

Albright Stonebridge Group | 11

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

materials sectors. This would allow Russian authorities to maintain a hardline public stance, play totheir citizens’ chauvinism, continue to scapegoat Western firms, and claim that they are protecting theircitizens’ data – all without harming foreign investment or economic growth.

BRAZILOne of the major obstacles facing opponents of data localization has been the lack of committed allies
to back up the arguments of U.S. companies. Most recently in Brazil, an unusual alliance of outside
governments and companies joined forces with a group of Brazilian firms to turn back an effort by someofficials to impose one of the world’s most restrictive data localization regulations. The regulation stoodout among an otherwise progressive and innovative approach to regulation of cyberspace.
Although data localization efforts in Brazil date back to 2009, regulation only gained traction after
Edward Snowden’s 2013 disclosure revealed that American spy agencies had eavesdropped on President
Dilma Rousseff’s personal communications. The revelations caused an uproar in Brazil; President
Rousseff called the revelations “incompatible” with a relationship among allies, and postponed a state
visit to Washington in protest.12 Michael Shifter, President of the American think tank Inter-American
Dialogue, said the revelations, “touched a real nerve in Brazil, a country that prizes its sovereignty and isunderstandably sensitive about such abuses.”13

Internet Bill of Rights
In 2013, the Brazilian National Congress began to consider a sweeping bill known as Marco Civil daInternet legislation, or the “Internet Bill of Rights.” Among other provisions, initial drafts of thelegislation guaranteed so-called net neutrality (guidelines promoting equal access to the Internet) andstronger data privacy rights. The draft also included a strict data localization regulation, Article XII.
Many Brazilian lawmakers supported localization because it enabled them to appear to be standing up
the United States, which played well domestically in the wake of the NSA revelations. Others justified
Article XII by arguing that it would help to better protect information from foreign surveillance and give
Brazilian courts better access to documents stored by multinational technology companies. Under thecurrent international system, judges and lawyers must make requests through cumbersome Mutual
Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs), which have not been updated for the Internet age.14
Recognizing the threat posed by Article XII, nearly 50 organizations from 18 countries engaged in a
letter-writing campaign to individual members of the Brazilian Congress, urging them to reject the data
localization provision. The coalition was composed of Internet and telecommunications industry
organizations, as well as international chambers of commerce from Latin America, North America,
Europe, and Asia.
Advocates argued that forced localization that would harm the country’s long-term interests for threereasons. First, coalition members said that increasing the number of data centers – as required under
the law – would actually reduce security by increasing the number of facilities requiring physicalprotection and maintenance. Second, the coalition generated evidence that users and companies relying
on computational capacity and bandwidth would face higher costs. Finally, the coalition warned that
Brazil would be unable to benefit from many innovative cloud services and its competitiveness would be
reduced across a range of industries.

Albright Stonebridge Group | 12

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

These efforts and arguments proved effective. In the buildup to the 2014 NetMundial global Internet
conference in São Paolo, the U.S. government – fearing that Brazilian data localization could set a bad
precedent – added its voice to the chorus of concern. Ultimately the Brazilian Congress stripped Article
XII from the Marco Civil, clearing the way for the legislation to be signed into law.

Lessons from successful collective action
In the case of Brazil, the collective action of multinational companies and industry groups helped
persuade authorities that data localization would hurt the nation’s long-term political and economic
interests. Gathering the right allies took place in tandem with a highly targeted campaign aimed at avery specific provision in a broad piece of legislation. Brazil has to date been the exception in the global
fight against data localization, demonstrating an ability to put long-term economic interests ahead ofshort-term political gain.
Data privacy and protection remain at the forefront of debate in Brasilia, which, like many capitals,
continues to grapple with how to best adapt to the development of disruptive technologies and thetransition to a digital economy. The Brazilian government is now considering public comments on theimplementing regulations for the Marco Civil, which officials in Brasília hope will serve as a global model.
A broad array of stakeholders continue to provide input and advocacy to help shape more targeted andeffective data protection regulations, but it now seems unlikely that Brazil will take steps as extreme asfull data localization.

NEXT STEPSAs the movement for data localization has gained momentum, companies and other institutions are
realizing the economic and institutional dangers that localization presents – but actions taken thus far
have done little to reverse the trend.
In part, the failure to adequately address the problem stems from the fact that no one-size-fits-all
solution is available, and the most effective path forward will be different in every market and for eachcompany. Firms will have to take stock of their method of hosting data, the extent of their multinational
footprint, and the volume and type of data they control. Crafting a strategy to fit separate nations will
require the ability to look beyond the regulations to understand the underlying political, economic, andcultural elements driving governments to adopt these measures.
To succeed, companies must also think like the governments that find themselves under increasingpressure from internal and external sources– including from their own agencies and citizens. Judicial andnational security personnel struggle through the lengthy MLAT process to obtain information locked inservers abroad. Citizens are demanding protection from foreign surveillance, and assurances about how
and when companies can use their personal data. There is also an eagerness to protect their own
technology industries by increasing investment and employment in communications technology.
Any successful strategy to combat these measures must also incorporate an understanding of the key
non-government stakeholders in each market. Technologists and NGOs that have built and guarded theInternet should be part of that conversation, however the most critical actors may well be local
companies whose voices will better resonate with national decision makers. Understanding the political

Albright Stonebridge Group | 13

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015priorities and interests of each stakeholder will be necessary to develop an engagement strategy thatcan stop, fix or launch rules, laws or regulations.
Many firms are beginning to address localization and other issues surrounding the storage and use ofdata. They are working to better encrypt and protect data; conducting human rights assessments before
they enter new markets; avoiding locating data centers in countries that limit Internet freedom;
embracing transparency about their operations; and attempting to multiply their power by joining with
NGOs and others through organizations such as the Global Network Initiative.15 Given the limited powerof a single company – and increasing anti-Americanism around the world – this last step may prove to be
the most crucial.
International trade negotiations are another potential venue for action. Companies should press theirgovernments to formally list data localization measures as non-tariff trade barriers. The U.S. Trade
Representative hopes to include provisions forbidding data localization in the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
and organizations should clearly state their support for its inclusions in the TPP and other major trade
agreements.16
Efforts to roll back the tide of data localization have done little to slow the advance of these measures todate. However, recent history reveals that it is possible to protect the privacy and security of citizens’
data without resorting to data localization or other measures restricting the free flow of information.
Coordinated and focused coalitions of multinational and local industries and NGOs that work together toexpose the threat to national economies, local industry and consumers can be effective. Data protection
without data protectionism is possible, but only if organizations come together to prevent governmentsfrom attempting to redraw the boundaries of the Internet.

Albright Stonebridge Group | 14

Data Localization: A Challenge to Global Commerce

September 2015

ENDNOTES
1

Fairless, Tom. “Europe’s Digital Czar Slams Google, Facebook.” Wall Street Journal. February 24, 2015.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/europes-digital-czar-slams-google-facebook-over-selling-personal-data-1424789664
2
Loretta Chao and Paulo Trevisani. “Brazil Legislators Bear Down on Internet Bill.” Wall Street Journal. November
13, 2013. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304868404579194290325348688
3
Rosenwald, Michael. “Cloud centers bring high-tech flash but not many jobs to beaten-down towns.” Washington
Post. November 24, 2011. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/cloud-centers-bring-high-techflash-but-not-many-jobs-to-beaten-down-towns/2011/11/08/gIQAccTQtN_print.html
4“The Costs of Data Localization: Friendly Fire on Economic Recovery.” European Centre for International Political
Economy. No. 3. 2014.http://www.ecipe.org/app/uploads/2014/12/OCC32014__1.pdf
5Tung, Liam. “Safe Harbour: Data sharing rules are invalid, says European court expert.” ZDNet. September 23,
2015. http://www.zdnet.com/article/safe-harbour-data-sharing-rules-are-invalid-say-european-court-expert/
6“Press Release: Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Angencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos.” Court of Justice of theEuropean Union. May 13, 2014. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201405/cp140070en.pdf
7
Crovitz, Gordon. “Hiding on the Internet.” Wall Street Journal. August 30, 2015.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hiding-on-the-internet-1440975213
8“Data Localization Requirements Through the Backdoor? Germany’s “Federal Cloud”, and New Criteria For the
Use of Cloud Services by the German Federal Administration.” National Law Review. September 16, 2015.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/data-localization-requirements-through-backdoor-germany-s-federalcloud-and-new
9“The Costs of Data Localization: Friendly Fire on Economic Recovery.” European Centre for International Political
Economy. No. 3. 2014.http://www.ecipe.org/app/uploads/2014/12/OCC32014__1.pdf
10“Promoting Economic Growth through Smart Global Information Technology Policy. The Growing Threat of Local
Data Server Requirements.” Business Roundtable. June 2012.
http://businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/legacy/uploads/studiesreports/downloads/Global_IT_Policy_Paper_final.pdf
11“Yahoo Criticized in Case of Jailed Dissident.” New York Times. November 7,
2007.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/technology/07yahoo.html?_r=0
12
Forero, Juan. “NSA spying scandal spoils dinner at the White House for Brazil’s president.” Washington Post.
September 17, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nsa-spying-scandal-spoils-dinner-at-the-whitehouse-for-brazils-president/2013/09/17/24f5acf6-1fc5-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html
13
Forero, Juan. “Brazil TV to release NSA documents that show U.S. spied on Petrobras.” Washington Post.
September 8, 2013. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/brazil-tv-to-release-nsa-documents-that-show-usspied-on-petrobras/2013/09/08/8c4cdaf6-18d0-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html
14
MLAT treaties are bilateral or multilateral agreements to provide information related to public safety, taxation,or national security investigations. Courts or governments must engage in a lengthy formal request process that is
becoming increasingly common when digital information is stored abroad. In addition, MLATs are a patchwork oftreaties, leaving some jurisdictions out of the reach of tax or law enforcement oversight.
15
The Global Network Initiative. https://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/
16“Trans-Pacific Partnership: Summary of U.S. Objectives.” Office of the United States Trade Representative.
https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives

Albright Stonebridge Group | 15