Slashdot Mirror
Patriot Act Dampening Cloud Computing?
Julie188 writes "Governments are turning the Internet into a cyberspace reflection of real-world geographic conflicts. One report says that the Canadian government is forbidding its IT organizations to use services that store or host the government's data outside their sovereign territory. They especially cannot use services where the data is stored in the United States because of fears over the Patriot Act. What kinds of jurisdiction issues might people face — think Google cooperating with the Chinese government — as cloud computing becomes the norm and your data is stored in 'offshore parts' of the cloud?"
The Patriot Act hurts the US IT industry.
Why should a foreign investor risk it to bring his IP to the US with the threat hanging over his head that suddenly it's declared illegal to export it, should he discover something the US deems "useful for terrorism" (read: something we'd rather have in the hands of US companies than others)?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, a government should actually do quite the opposite of what's happening: Making sure that everyone has the same chance to succeed, offering a level play field for enterprises, make them compete with each other, let the best one win chosen by the customer who picks the supplyer making the best offer.
IIRC from my economy courses, that's what free market is about.
Instead we get more and more laws lobbied into existance by large companies to ensure those companies have an edge over anyone trying to muscle into the field. Worse yet, outdated and obsolete structures and business models are being propped up by laws that go directly against anything free market represents.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm not really sure how "news worthy" this is. As one example, the Ontario Education Act prohibits public schools in Ontario from using text books that are not written by Canadian authors.
The Canadian government trying to keep things in Canada is very standard practice. I didn't RTFA and I'm sure it mentions the Patriot Act, but I really doubt the Patriot Act is the sole reason that they won't outsource hosting companies to the US. Their policy is most likely that they can not outsource anything to anywhere outside of Canada unless they have no choice.
Hey, what gives? You got anything to hide or what?
Some people do need to touch the hot stove. I stopped trying to keep them from doing it, people don't learn 'til they burn their hands.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
From capacity to "service level agreements" that guarantee little, cloud computing has business problems.
I went to this talk at Stanford by the head of "cloud computing" at Amazon. Technically, Amazon's approach to "cloud computing" is quite impressive. As a business, it works for a special reason - Amazon's load is 4X greater than normal during the buying season before Xmas. Amazon has to size their data centers for the Xmas buying season. For the rest of the year they have vast excess capacity. That's why Amazon's "cloud" is so cheap to use.
So Amazon's "cloud" is a great service, unless you need it during November and December.
The keys would be kept in Canada.
It is not just governments. Universities and other institutions have obligations under Canadian privacy laws. If they store data in the US, for example by using GMail accounts or online question services from text book companies, the US government can gain access to private data on Canadian students and the University will then be liable for a breach of privacy under Canadian law.
This has meant that at least some Canadian Universities are looking at implementing policies which forbid the storing of data in the US. The result undoubtedly will have some economic impact on the US since now either US companies will have to invest in Canadian based servers or be automatically disqualified from bidding on IT contracts (although I also understand that the US government can force US companies to reveal data even if it is not stored in the US so it may rule out any US company). This is not just hypothetical either - to my knowledge it has already affected contract decisions.
Actually, it's supposed to work that way under the US Constitution.
The Legislative branch makes the law. Second, the Executive branch executes the law. Last, the Judicial branch interprets the law. Each branch has an effect on the other.
Legislative Branch
Executive Branch
Judicial Branch
These checks are inefficient. And this inefficiency is borne out when one political party in the US system captures all three of the branches (as it has) and then, for the purpose of extending the power of that party, fails to exercise restraint and to provide a check on the other branches.
What I have noted is that the only branch that has actually decided to act in a manner consistent with Constitutional checks and balances is the Supreme Court. To the extent the Legislative Branch (or branches of the various States) have worked to mandate sentencing or require judges to act without their power to interpret, the Supreme Court has ruled these requirements as nothing more than guidelines. And this has gone on despite a rather radical shift in the Supreme Court to the political right. And I would agree with them, even though my own political direction differs strongly from many of their recent decisions and statements.
The Orwellian-named "USA Patriot Act" was a bill that was utterly altered -- in its entirety -- in the middle of the night by Bush's Attorney General, John Ashcroft within a committee that was also completely asleep at the switch. This is part of the rules of Congress, where a committee will take in a b
Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
Not everyone agrees that a free market is what's best for society. There are always going to be political lobbyists, politicians and voting citizens who opt for more regulation. In fact, I'm personally surprised by how many of my peers seem to favour more communist-like systems.
The other day a friend of mine was watching a Youtube video of a speech given by one of the founding members of the Canadian Action Party and he, not being canadian, asked me who this guy was. I explained to him what the CAP was all about. Said that while I agree with their Canadian Nationalist views they feel that globalization is a big conspiracy by the corporations in order to rule the world and make everyone their slaves. His response was "well isn't that already true ?"
It seems that a large portion of the public feels that corporations have far too much power and that free market has failed. They want government to further regulate the markets because they would rather have the government control their lives than corporations (they refuse to see that the public gives the corporations their power just as we give the government it's power).
Since I've failed to remain neutral I might as well just add that I am a pro-free-market libertarian and I think it will take a couple of wars before we can claim that the corporations enslave people. I do agree, however, that they get away with too much, but not because of a lack of regulation. It's because money buys justice and politicians. THAT is what that needs to be fixed. Yet many people don't look that deep into it. I can say with assertion that most people that I know in person certainly don't. They see that money = corporations = free market = evil and thus want more regulation.
Oh and it doesn't help matters when every single case of deregulation has resulted in short term economic upheaval while things balance out. Forget about selling long term advantages if it's going to cost people jobs and higher prices in the short term.
...you want your data to be secure?
Disconnect it from the net.
given the vast amount of digital leakage and other human errors, who are you really putting trust in?
May I sum it up?
The time of enlightenment brought us the separation of church and state. What we need is a second time of enlightenment, separating enterprises and state.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.