No Party may require a service supplier, as a condition for supplying a service or investing in its territory, to: (a) use computing facilities located in the Partys territory.
This is an anti-protectionism clause.
I'm a service supplier, I help indie authors format their books so they're ready to publish on Amazon and elsewhere. It's all digital. This is 2015, I can easily work with people around the world. I'm in the US, one of my clients is in Dubai. It looks like I'm about to gain a new client in France. Why should that person who wants to use my service be denied that, and why should I be denied the opportunity to provide that service, simply because I don't use computing facilities in France (or Germany, or whatever other country wanted to impose such a condition)?
From a libertarian perspective, government should get out of the way of peaceful transactions between consenting adults (whatever those transactions may be).
Screw national "sovereignty" how about
individual sovereignty? Saying "you must use our computing facilities to do business here" is like saying "you must use our currency to do business here" -- not something I'd expect to see support for on a Bitcoin-focused forum! It's statist bullshit, to put it bluntly.
Are there privacy implications? There might be. And I agree that this is not the kind of discussion that should be done in haste and in private. But at least with respect to giving individuals the ability to do business without protectionist governments getting in the way, I'm all for it.