What GLARS is

Geo-Legal Access Risk Score

GLARS is an open methodology for scoring how exposed your data is to government access, embargoes and sanctions, based on where it is stored and who controls it.

It rates seven components using published law rather than politics, and combines them into one score from 0 to 100 with a Low, Medium or High risk level, so hosting and provider choices can be compared like for like. Read the full methodology

How to use the calculator

Decide what you’re assessing

List the jurisdictions that can reach your data: where it is stored, where the provider’s parent company is based, and where the domain is registered. Assessing several together? Give each component the highest score among them.

Assessing a domain or IP address? Juri works these out for you.
Answer the questions

Each component has a few short statements. Answer No, Partly or Yes, where “Yes” always means more risk, and skip anything you can’t judge. Your answers set the component’s score, with a description of what that score means.

Prefer your own number? Use “Set the score yourself” and check it against the measuring stick:

0–20
Strong protections, or no exposure

21–40
Limited, closely overseen

41–60
Significant, with some checks

61–80
Extensive, weakly checked

81–100
Broad and unchecked
Read the result

You get a score out of 100, a Low, Medium or High risk level, what set the score, and the controls recommended for that level.
Save or share

Copy the vector to record the assessment, or copy a link that reopens the calculator with the same scores.

New to GLARS? Pick a worked example at the top of the calculator to see a completed assessment and the reasoning behind each score, then change it to fit your case.

Calculator

Start blank, or from a worked example

Step 2 Core legal components

Answer the questions under each component. These five are weighted and added together to make the base score.

JO Judicial Oversight

Weight 20% Not scored

The strength and independence of judicial review governing government access to data.

Prior judicial authorisation before access
Independence of courts from the executive
Specificity and narrowness of access requests
Availability of meaningful appeal

Set the score yourself

Your Judicial Oversight score (0–100)

Judicial Oversight scoring guide in the Deep Dive

AP Agency Powers

Weight 25% Not scored

The breadth and depth of legal authority granted to government agencies to access data.

Scope of authorised collection
Bulk versus targeted collection
Powers to compel service providers
Claimed authority beyond borders

Set the score yourself

Your Agency Powers score (0–100)

Agency Powers scoring guide in the Deep Dive

TR Technical Requirements

Weight 15% Not scored

Technical capabilities providers must build or maintain to facilitate government access.

Mandated access mechanisms
Key escrow or decryption obligations
Mandatory data retention
Powers to compel infrastructure changes

Set the score yourself

Your Technical Requirements score (0–100)

Technical Requirements scoring guide in the Deep Dive

EX Extraterritoriality

Weight 25% Not scored

How far the jurisdiction’s laws assert authority over data and providers outside its territory.

Claims over data stored abroad
Claims based on provider nationality
Claims based on data-subject nationality
Claims based on corporate control

Set the score yourself

Your Extraterritoriality score (0–100)

Extraterritoriality scoring guide in the Deep Dive

TP Transparency

Weight 15% Not scored

How visible government data-access activity is to the public, providers and affected people.

Public reporting of access requests
Notification of affected individuals
Prevalence of gag orders
Availability of meaningful statistics

Set the score yourself

Your Transparency score (0–100)

Transparency scoring guide in the Deep Dive

Step 2 Trade restrictions

These two are not added in. If either is higher than the base score, it becomes the GLARS score.

EI Embargo Impact

Not weighted Not scored

The severity of trade restrictions that prohibit or limit commercial activity with a country.

Comprehensiveness of restrictions
Number of issuing governments
Enforcement history
Available exceptions and licences
Conflicting blocking statutes

Set the score yourself

Your Embargo Impact score (0–100)

Embargo Impact scoring guide in the Deep Dive

SS Sanction Severity

Not weighted Not scored

Targeted financial and economic restrictions on specific entities, individuals or sectors.

Scope of prohibited activities
Risk of secondary sanctions
Penalty levels
Screening and due-diligence obligations
Humanitarian exceptions

Set the score yourself

Your Sanction Severity score (0–100)

Sanction Severity scoring guide in the Deep Dive

Step 3 Your result

–/100

Answer the questions, or load a worked example, to see a result.

Illustrative only and not legal advice. GLARS is not a sanctions-screening tool; check official lists. Notices

Step 4 Save or share

Links carry the scores in the address. Your browser history keeps them, and anyone you send a link to can see the assessment.

Open a saved vector

What’s next: five proposed enhancements

Today’s score is a static, country-level baseline. These proposals would make it reflect context and change over time. None of them is part of the score yet, and because several are multipliers, how to keep results within 0–100 is still an open question.

Temporal intelligence

Adjust for change over time: how fast relevant law is moving, which way enforcement is trending, and how stable the legal position is, judged from scheduled expiries of key powers, pending court challenges and the use of emergency legislation.
Industry context

Apply sector multipliers to specific components, for example healthcare 1.2–1.5×, financial services 1.3–1.6×, critical infrastructure 1.4–1.7×.
Enforcement history

Calibrate written law against how it is used: focus on foreign entities, enforcement abroad, penalties imposed, and how often appeals succeed.
Data sensitivity

Weight the score by the data at stake, from public material (0.8–1.0×) to critical data such as biometrics or national-security information (2.0–2.5×).
Jurisdiction interactions

Replace “take the highest” with how jurisdictions combine. Cooperation such as the UK-US Data Access Agreement amplifies risk; conflicts and blocking laws such as GDPR Article 48 or the EU Data Act can reduce it. A first step is live: the calculator’s Perspective score adjusts for where the question is asked from.

Have evidence or a view on these? Message John Carroll on LinkedIn.

While the Risk Score might be important to some, the true value of GLARS lies in ensuring that essential questions have answers, and that decision-makers understand the material effects on data custodians, data owners, and those accountable for compliance. It's about ensuring full consideration of data location risks, so informed decisions can be made with a complete picture of jurisdictional implications.

John Carroll

An Objective, Apolitical Framework

GLARS is designed as a neutral, apolitical assessment tool that relies solely on documented legal frameworks, published government powers, and verifiable technical requirements across jurisdictions.

Evidence-Based Assessment

GLARS evaluations are based strictly on publicly available information about legal frameworks, government access powers, and technical mandates. The framework uses primary sources like legislation, court decisions, and government publications.

Objective Scoring

Risk scores are calculated using consistent criteria applied uniformly across all jurisdictions. The methodology assesses the presence or absence of specific legal powers and mechanisms, not subjective judgments about governments or political systems.

Transparent Methodology

The GLARS assessment approach is fully documented and transparent. Users can trace how each score is derived, which legal frameworks contribute to the evaluation, and the weighting applied to different factors.

Practical Utility

The framework focuses on practical risk assessment for data governance, helping organizations understand the specific legal powers that could impact their data regardless of geopolitical considerations or national preferences.

Resources

Jurisdiction Journey

Follow one customer record through UK, US and Indian law, stage by stage, from sign-up to a cross-border demand.

Explore the Journey →

GLARS Deep Dive

Explore a fully detailed, comprehensive analysis of the GLARS framework with in-depth explanations of all components and methodology.

Take the Deep Dive →

Juri

Apply GLARS to real infrastructure: analyse domains and IP addresses, singly or in bulk, for hosting, CDN, corporate and TLD jurisdictions, with exportable results.

Open juri.host

Geo-Legal Access Risk Score

How to use the calculator

Decide what you’re assessing

Answer the questions

Read the result

Save or share

Calculator

JO Judicial Oversight

AP Agency Powers

TR Technical Requirements

EX Extraterritoriality

TP Transparency

EI Embargo Impact

SS Sanction Severity

What’s next: five proposed enhancements

Temporal intelligence

Industry context

Enforcement history

Data sensitivity

Jurisdiction interactions

An Objective, Apolitical Framework

Evidence-Based Assessment

Objective Scoring

Transparent Methodology

Practical Utility

Resources

Jurisdiction Journey

GLARS Deep Dive

Juri