Network jurisdiction: Server location or owner location?

Wei this month, the U.S. Science and Technology website ZDNet reported that under the Patriot Act, Google submitted its European data center information to the U.S. government and intelligence agencies.　　Applying a fashionable concept to the data on the "cloud" of Europeans (or corporations and organizations), Google gave it to the US government. This matter and Google "do not do evil" creed relationship is not big, after all, it is the United States business, comply with the U.S. government's directive is not "evil".　　But the question is clear: the privacy of Europeans and the Organization secrets of European organizations are being published under the eyelids of a foreign government, and it is not good for Europeans who are in fact a bit of a row of beauty.　　It's a matter of jurisdiction over the Internet, it can be said that the problem has been debated for a long time since the advent of the Internet, some of which have been resolved, and some have not yet been resolved in a perfect way, nor have they heard of any international convention practice or a way of dealing with the fact accepted by all Governments. There are some phenomena on the internet that fall within the purview of the jurisdictional issues. For example, in country A, some Internet services are not illegal, but in country B, it is a crime. So, is it illegal for citizens of State B to use the Internet for remote control and to open such services in country a?　　The current way of handling is: This person is guilty of the law, need to accept the legal sanction of State B. But the controversy over Google is this: an Internet company affiliated with Country A has a server in State B. Is the jurisdiction of this server in a champion or B champion? It is reasonable to say that in a champion, because the owner of the server-the enterprise is a country, it is natural to comply with the jurisdiction of State A.　　But said in B champion also not necessarily no reason, because this server and the data on the server, "physical" on the location in State B, under the jurisdiction of State B, can also be established. The game between countries is still a game of interest, so, from the perspective of interests, what is the final solution to this kind of controversy? I personally think that it is very possible to implement the principle of which country's enterprises, to which country tube.　　That is to see where the server's owner is, not where the server is physically. In the short term, such a solution to the domestic enterprises or individuals suffer a bit. In Google's case, those who put the data on Google Server organizations or individuals, it may be bad. In the long run, however, such a scheme would encourage domestic enterprises or individuals to use the services of their own internet companies. Because, for a normal civilized country, national legislation relative to foreign legislation, it seems manageable. In the absence of an emergency, it is not easy for a country to require its own network companies to hand over information about other businesses or individuals in the country-which makes most civil businesses and individuals more comfortable.　　In the event of an emergency, it is easier for the government to control at least its own information. Such a solution is somewhat in conflict with some of the practices in the current reality society. For example, a national enterprise in country b to open a branch, general andstatement, it is common for the Government of State B to require it to disclose internal information in conjunction with certain acts of State B, which is usually complied with (according to local laws and policies).　　But if, according to my analysis above, the information on the server, the jurisdiction is a state rather than State B, if state A does not allow the enterprise to do so, the enterprise must obey the directive of country A. The case is not much, Google is a case, a while ago Microsoft has been a similar thing: under the Patriot Act to hand over data abroad. These cases will trigger an iterative game between countries, but in my opinion, it will eventually form an international practice as described in this article.　　Although this practice is contrary to some of the laws of the real world, but based on their own interests to maximize the benefits, but is the largest. (the author teaches in the School of Media and Design, Shanghai Jiaotong University, New media, Internet observer)