Thanks for the clarification. Coming at it from a distance (in this case,
Hong Kong), please take my thoughts with a grain of salt. Clearly, local
legislation and norms are key. I have found success, generally, by
working within systems to achieve greater principles. Some people prefer
to buck the system. I have found that doing so works best as a
complementary strategy (when warranted) but rarely achieves the goal in
the span of one lifetime if it is the primary strategy. I'd be happy to
discuss that in more detail off list.
In principle, you might be discussing a German firm relocating to the
states. EU privacy requirements are not supported by the USA, so unless
the company can take necessary steps around meeting the EU requirements,
the relocation of relevant data would be illegal. (Also true if you have
your server for HR info in California but your staff are in Dusseldorf).
This illustrates that it is not necessarily "wrong" for a national
government to set requirements on the physical location of records. It is
simply a way of operating.
Pragmatically, if the law of the land argues that the records should
physically remain where they originated, and so long as moving the data
content breaches no law, then there are many ways to meet that spirit
while still enabling the company to retain its information content whafter
relocation.
As a records manager, I would argue that the company should
(a) review what, specifically, it deems necessary to retain and
(b) devise a strategy to capture that content, quite apart from any
National Archive scheme.
As a company archivist, I might make different decisions about what should
be retained and why.
As a local, or even National Archivist, you might have a difficult time
convincing me that a company with roots in a geographic locale has no
historical relevance unless it is one of hundreds. This is especially so
if the law supptrs that archivist's view.
Therefore, I don't think that the position that the principle in question
was intended for "historical archives" is supportable. What archive is not
historical? Arguments can be brought against virtually any position taken
that a government archive is not a historical archive. Of course, a
legalistic interpreation of mandates, policies, etc. may suit...but even
then, a government body can relatively easily exert a revised mandate.
In short, if the company wants access to data, can this be achieved
without going head to head with government over existing legilsation that
supports the government position?
If the company wants specific records, can a legal requirement for those
records be established to support an argument for, say, surrogates of the
records to be provided to satisfy government's need?
Hope these thoughts may be of some value.
Cheers-
John
Partner & Principal Consultant
IRM Strategies
[log in to unmask]
http://www.irmstrategies.com
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
|