Out of interest, would you be happy with this if you had no option, and such storage was obligatory? I.e., to be hypothetical, suppose a resident of Canada who did not want their personal information kept within Canada because they were under surveillance from the United States, and they knew that Canada shared information with the U.S. government. Would you approve of a law that gave that person no choice in where they stored their personal data?

Not the parent, but in my view, this wouldn't be significantly different than the world outside the Internet. A citizen and their possessions are rarely if ever outside the legal jurisdiction of the nation they are a part of. I do not see why the Internet should be any different than this.

If there is a problem with the government, the solution needs to be to fix that government, not try to evade it or operate outside of it.

I'm not sure your metaphor works, even as a description of the current state of affairs. I can send my possessions anywhere I want, and I'm not limited in where I keep my possessions. We don't generally place bans on moving legal possessions.

I don't know if I agree. There are import and export restrictions and most countries require you declare on a customs form the contents of packages shipped outside of the country. When you travel, you're expected to bring anything you take with you back, and declare anything you bring in that you didn't take out.

In addition, from a more realistic/practical scenario, most physical possessions are not useful outside of your legal jurisdiction in that you cannot easily use them yourself.

And there's a significant issue with digital assets (as with money, in fact), that large companies shift them over international borders in order to evade the law, that simply doesn't exist in the physical possession space.

For example, I believe it's been accused that some tech companies shift user data overseas explicitly so that they can then deny fulfilling legal warrants on the grounds the data is not stored in the same country, or any number of tax evasion schemes designed to store and transfer money through countries with favorable tax laws.

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. I have packed all my things - truckloads of them - and moved to a different country several times in my life. It was never an issue, legally speaking.

Yet, because I am still a Russian citizen, this law effectively requires Facebook to store my personal data on Russian servers. Including such data that has been generated in the last several years of me living elsewhere (which is, in fact, all of it - I didn't even have an FB account until I moved).

How does this make any sense?

The funny thing is that we already have national TLDs. And many of them require that a person or company is a citizen/resident of the nation before they can register an address there.

but the gTLDs were in a sense in legal limbo for a long time. On paper they were always US controlled, but anyone anywhere could register there.

But then more recently we have seen sites takes down by the FBI and similar even though both the physical servers and the owner are located abroad. This simply by having the registrar reassign the DNS entry to an FBI page.

What do you propose to do for dual citizens?

The US didn't and doesn't pursue corporate espionage at a government level. The Clinton administration was presented with the idea, but the question about what company would be given the information wasn't clear since, unlike many countries, the US has no real government controlled industry.

This is covered in books like "Cyberspies: The Secret History of Surveillance, Hacking, and Digital Espionage".

Did you leave out the <sarcasm> flag somewhere? The Boeing-Airbus case had probably the highest 'household recognition' among examples of US intelligence working in corporate interests, but it was far from an isolated incident.

https://www.ft.com/content/e86fdad0-42d9-11e3-9d3c-00144feab...

A lesson was learnt in 1994 when France lost out on a big aerospace contract for Airbus in Saudi Arabia to Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, apparently after a phone call by the then prime minister Edouard Balladur, in which he discussed the terms Airbus had offered, was intercepted by US intelligence.

Uhh, France's corporate espionage dwarfs this "apparent" episode, whose evidence is apparently a throwaway line in a FT article?

Your source: a random line in an article about an episode that occurred 23 years ago during the Clinton administration. My source: a well researched book covering the entire history of modern espionage with a significant portion dedicated to corporate espionage, with specific mention of the Clinton administration's handling of this topic.