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