I don't know how much traffic their infrastructure is up to serving, but Iceland is supposed to be good in that regard. When the US tried to subpoena the Twitter account records of an Icelandic MP, the US Ambassador to Iceland was called in to explain TF the US thought it was doing. (Twitter was also able to quash the subpoena on appeal, and as it was regarding an Icelandic citizen, it's not directly on point.)
All that aside, it was my understanding that they wanted to remake their Internet image as a privacy haven of sorts -- the kind of place someone like Assange/WikiLeaks could safely host their service. I'm having a spot of trouble finding relevant primary sources; can anyone else help point me in the right direction?
(Following up to myself, since the edit link has expired.)
After some more digging, I found a few relevant links, the most direct of which is [1]. A number of other articles re-hashed the same points described there, but I did find a few like [2], which also describe Iceland's connectivity -- it's far better than I'd thought. As of a year ago, they had on the order of 8 tbps in undersea cables, stable ping times of around 100ms to the US (and, presumably to the EU, if not better), 100% geothermal power, and a climate that would enable passively cooled data centers.
I couldn't find anything directly relevant to whether access logs would be subpoena-able, but the reading I get from what I did find is that their focus is more on being a transparency haven than a privacy such. Whistleblowers, journalists, and their sources are clearly very well protected by the IMMI (which appears to have passed unanimously). It's also, however, explicitly stated that the new law won't change anything in the current law WRT child pornography and copyright infringement, usually the big bugaboos of the "we need to control the interwebs" crowd. (Not to say those aren't problems; they just aren't the problems they're usually made out to be.)
So, net, I'm not sure Iceland's the answer to these kinds of shenanigans, but it's clearly a step in the right direction.
What Sony's trying to do is locate jurisdiction in the location where the data ends up. So, it would be irrelevant as to where it came from. You could host in Iran and they would still attempt to show it being under a CA court.
I think kmfrk is trying to ask if there are any countries where you would likely be safe from a judge turning over your users' data to Sony just to see if any of them were in California.
