Re: Call Centres in India

• Previous message: jay: "Re: Call Centres in India"
• In reply to: jay: "Re: Call Centres in India"
• Next in thread: Michael J. Pelletier: "Re: Call Centres in India"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:41:02 +0000 (UTC)

In article <1119544024.702455.261620@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
jay <jaysjunk@covad.net> wrote:
:Interesting points.
:I wonder if you could duck NAFTA by speccing in the requirements that
:all customer data be housed and handled in Canada?

That by itself would still allow US companies to bid and win,
and then end up being forced to reveal the data.

Keep in mind here that contract terms are civil matters, whereas the
Patriot Act establishes new judicial and criminal procedures, and thus
overrides civil contract law. If a US company operating in Canada
is approached by the appropriate US authority and required to
deliver the data into US hands, then the principles of the US company
could be thrown in jail for refusing. [I had some verbage about
"enemy combatants" here, but decided not to include it.]

:Maybe you could specify the manner or kind of security required, to
:prevent it being exposed to the Patriot act?

Yes, that is pretty much what you would have to do. One could not, do
it arbitrarily: one might be required to demonstrate that the
information was sensitive enough to warrant specification of particular
national ownership. One might, for example, be called upon to show that
there was a history of attempting to protect the data; e.g., if it used
to be kept in a simple card-file that anyone could get at when the
clerk's back was turned, then unless one could point to particular
legislation that increased the privacy requirements, or demonstrate
that one was merely bringing one's protections up to those "prevailing
in the industry", then one would risk a "loss of profits" NAFTA
lawsuit.

Canada has proposed introducing legislation specifically aimed at
countering the effects of the Patriot Act upon Canadian data. Canada
has also publically and diplomatically expressed concern about matters
such as requirements to share passenger information (including credit
card numbers) for domestic Canadian flights that happen to pass over US
airspace. (USA: "The flight could be hijacked and flown against US
targets!") There are also notable diplomatic issues with respect to
biometrics and needs for passports and needs for visas for Canadians
crossing the border (*lots* of Canadians visit the USA, for business or
for pleasure or to go grocery shopping...) So far, Canada appears to
have only -delayed- implementation of some of the US legislation, but
the US has indicated that it intends to go ahead with pretty much all
of the provisions.

:Regardless of country, those are the prime issues- accountability,
:security, etc.

I was thinking this morning, that "security" is traditionally defined
in terms of allowing access only by "authorized people". The Patriot
Act noticably changed the rules about who is "authorized" and how they
gain that authorization. For a number of linked diplomatic, security,
and economic reasons, national governments of other countries might
find themselves "authorizing" data exchanges requested by the USA.

This leads to a disconnect between the traditional notion of
"authorization" and a more modern impression of it. I would, for
example, not be surprised to find a number of Canadians saying, "I
don't so much mind Revenue Canada and Customs having my tax data,
because I understand that taxes are a practical necessity -- but no
matter what the government says about the matter, *I* don't consider
the US Government to be authorized to look at my taxes!!"

The disconnect is perhaps informed by a factor that you did not happen
to mention, and which is rather difficult to nail down the meaning of,
which is the notion of "Privacy". I think that a lot of people would
agree that "intelligence" exchanges are often "An Invasion of my
Privacy!"... but I doubt that they or I could really say what "privacy"
*is*.

-- 
Studies show that the average reader ignores 106% of all statistics
they see in .signatures.

• Previous message: jay: "Re: Call Centres in India"
• In reply to: jay: "Re: Call Centres in India"
• Next in thread: Michael J. Pelletier: "Re: Call Centres in India"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]