[Retracted] Outbound Data Legality Analysis in CPTPP Countries under the Environment of Cross‐Border Data Flow Governance

Abstract

The governance of cross-border data flows around the digital economy, data security, and data sovereignty has become a crucial global governance issue. This paper evaluates the legitimacy of data exit rules of CPTPP countries based on machine learning algorithm models under the perspective of cross-border data flow governance. In this study, four machine learning algorithms, namely, logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, and GBDT, are used to build an outbound data assessment and evaluation model. The confusion matrix is used to classify the outbound data legitimacy dichotomously. The recall, precision, and F1 scores are evaluated to compare the empirical results of each model. Based on this, a logistic regression-based outbound data risk scoring model is introduced to quantify the outbound data risk at a deeper level and to classify the outbound data risk level for the reference of regulators to make more scientific and reasonable decisions. The experimental results show that the machine learning models can meet the needs and applications of practical work and make accurate predictions of outbound data risks.

Data security risk analysis of typical internet companies in China

“…The risk of cross-border data activities drives many countries to implement data localization strategies. The spatial game is one of the most complicated fields, combined with geopolitics, industrial competition, economic and trade relations, network sovereignty, and rights protection 10 .…”

Retracted: Outbound Data Legality Analysis in CPTPP Countries under the Environment of Cross-Border Data Flow Governance

“…Tis article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. Tis investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process:…”

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [ 1 ]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of one or more of the following indicators of systematic manipulation of the publication process: Discrepancies in scope Discrepancies in the description of the research reported Discrepancies between the availability of data and the research described Inappropriate citations Incoherent, meaningless and/or irrelevant content included in the article Peer-review manipulation …”