Pretty much every developed country has some framework for collecting electronic data pursuant to legal process: https://tmt.bakermckenzie.com/-/media/minisites/tmt/files/20.... Country after country has decided that the government should have access to that information to perform legitimate government law enforcement functions. (The process can be abused, sure, but the functionality must be present to permit entirely proper and lawful requests for data.) And that is deeply rooted in precedent and practice. If you were a maritime shipper in the 1700s, you’d have to respond to law enforcement requests for information about the goods you transported on behalf of suspects. What’s not proper is when a foreign country that performs no law enforcement function in a jurisdiction tries to “siphon data.” Trying to draw an equivalence between the two is entirely fallacious.
> If you were a maritime shipper in the 1700s, you’d have to respond to law enforcement requests for information about the goods you transported on behalf of suspects
Tell me if I am mistaken, but in these specific case it looks more to me like forbidding customers and companies from using foreign made secure vaults because the government can't force them to secretly provide a master key.
Then sure, the argument is also valid that these vault makers could be providing a master key to their respective governments, but that would be a different argument and different enforcement.
