Slashdot Mirror
Google Asks 'Who Cares Where Your Data Is?'
mask.of.sanity writes "The chief security officer for Google Apps, Eran Feigenbaum, said popular concerns over data sovereignty in outsourced environments are unwarranted. He said businesses should worry about security and privacy of data, rather than where it is stored. The comments clash with those made by IT pros including Gartner, who said cloud providers like Google can't be trusted with sensitive data."
If the data is sensitive, you should be encrypting it anyway before passing it along to a third party thatr has no business looking at it. If the data isn't sensitive enough to encrypt, why do you care where Google keeps it?
http://xkcd.com/908/
I'm sorry, but on the trust scale, Google, who has yet to lie to me, wins big over Gartner, who lies through their teeth every time they review a product. I still recall Gartner recommending WinME. 'Nuff said there....
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Obviously, it is Feigenbaum's job to exude nonsense where required; but the notion that worrying about where something is stored isn't part of(much less opposed to) "worry[ing] about security and privacy of data" is transparent absurdity.
Where data are, in part, determines what laws(and de-facto uses and abuses of power) they are subject to or subject to the protection of. In a number of cases(including the not-exactly-economically-insignificant case of EU businesses working with American cloud entities...) it might even turn out that storing certain sorts of data in some jurisdictions means that a given entity is in violation of data protection laws at home because the data protection laws are insufficiently strong where they are storing data.
Things like whether or not you are getting hacked by lulzsec are, of course, also important; but(until Google transforms itself into a cypherpunk utopia or sprouts a formidable nuclear deterrent), location is right up there with hackers in determining how likely your data are to be absconded with against your wishes. And(unlike hackers) you can't really code your way past the feds...
I didn't hear anything about Sony having their data outsourced. It didn't seem to do any good to keep sensitive data on their own servers. I think the lesson here is that all data on any networked device is at risk.
Why should we be concerned only with security/privacy of data OR the actual location of the storage? Can't we care about both?
I'm not comfortable keeping data entrusted to me on a provider who can walk away from a data loss with no penalties due to the Terms of Service.
At least when it's on my systems, someone is going to take a fall for data loss, even if it's me. And I'm OK with that.
"My God...it's full of trolls!"
How much are they willing to compensate me if they lose my data? What, they won't? Don't trust themselves?
I know where your data is. I know it's located in a few data centers. I can kill those data centers and your business is dead.
If you have the power to kill a few Google datacenters, why don't you just use that power to kill the business directly?
If that's the case why doesn't Google store its data with Amazon or Microsoft? I'm sure both Amazon and Microsoft will give Google a deal on data storage.
First, it may actually be a legal requirement keeping the date in a certain jurisdiction. And second, any law enforcement or TLA access to the data will be governed by the laws of the place the date is physically stored. If the Google people do not understand that, one more reason to not hand your data to them.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I care because I'm Canadian. If I keep my data up here it's not subjected to the almighty Patriot Act. Case Closed.
Its not about securing data. Its not even about Google mis-using demographics.
Its about privacy and business value.
Most businesses are valued based on their assets, stock on hand and good will. Good will is a measure of the number of customers who continue to use the business regularly.
Good will is typically measured by looking at the CRMs and counting the number of client files that are active. Take that away, and you can no longer measure good will.
So, why does Cloud computing threaten good will? I'm glad you asked. Many consumers continue to conduct business with a particular company because 'they have my records'. Its not some kind of corporate blackmail. Its easy for the customer to continue to do business with the people that know them. This customer knowledge is held in corporate CRMs.
As soon as it becomes widely known that all CRM data is in the Cloud, there will be a gradual transition (thanks to FOI laws) of the ownership of the data moving back to the individuals instead of residing with the companies. Microsoft's HealthVault is case in point. When my medical records are owned by ME instead of owned by my doctor, I can choose to get healthcare anywhere.
There are great arguments in favour of the concept. Client service will improve out of sight when it is the yardstick for comparing companies (instead of possession of CRM data). However, show me one businessman who is prepared to give his goodwill into Google's custody, and I'll show you a big risk-taker.
Googles example of an intraoffice message being routed around the world is a classic strawman argument. It's not the individual intraoffice messages that might bounce outside the data centre (possible due to a .forward on an individual account) that worries me. That's a needle in a haystack (although the searching algs are getting much better). It is the fact that the entire storage of read and unread (i.e. webmail,imap) ends up on a server that may be in a different legal jurisdiction (and for my University, it is a different legal jurisdiction). Or, if you adopt google docs, all of your documents are stored in google's servers (and without encryption to boot!!). One US court subpoena, warrant or NSL, and all your data is vacuumed. Even though some recent cases have strengthened the notification requirement, you have to fight the subpoena or warrant in a US court under US law.
If you are just using google as a disk drive, then you can encrypt your data, but if you are actually using the google services, forget it.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
*sigh*. Okay. I thought it was obvious why this "story" is not quality discussion material, but I'll explain.
The article is presented as if its subject is Eran Feigenbaum's claim that "Professionals should worry about security and privacy of data, rather than where it is stored." But instead the article is a potpourri of quotations and facts unrelated to the main problem with the claim, which the article totally ignores. Any article on the subject of this claim needs to in some way establish that security and privacy can make location irrelevant, and I would expect the supporting statements of the article to do this, but nothing in the story even approaches this basic aspect of the claim. Instead, it is filled with a number of superficially-seemingly-related-but-ultimately-off-topic anecdotes.
After presenting Feigenbaum's main claim, the article presents a "supporting argument" by Feigenbaum: "He cited a meeting in Europe where he had tracked an email sent within an office as it bounced through five countries. In this circumstance, Feigenbaum said, security trumps data sovereignty." So email currently goes through a lot of countries when it is sent from one person in an office to another, where it is likely in plain text and can be read by any number of corporate and government entities. The only way this could possibly be construed as supportive of Feigenbaum's point is if read as "Email currently goes through many nations and it is secure enough". If read with any understanding of how the email system works, it undermines Feigenbaum's point.
Then the article has Michael Cloppert "support" the argument with the same type of claim: "I'm not convinced that the data location issue is a problem - after all, packets are routinely routed around the world irrespective of the export status of their content". Again, the argument is "this is what we're doing now, therefore it is secure enough". Actual security of information going through various nations is not addressed.
Then it presents the "other side" of the argument: There is no way you can know how Google is handling your data even though they assure you they are doing it well. And their contracts have lots of language that could excuse them from legal liability if that is not the case.
Then we go back the argument supporting Feigenbaum's main point. "He said customer data can only be accessed on a need-to-know basis". This does not support 5he argument that privacy and security make location irrelevant. "[L]ess than two per cent of Google staff had entered its top secret data centres". This does not support the argument that privacy and security make location irrelevant. "Google also stamped each hard drive with unique barcodes that allowed the company to track the lifecycle of data stored on each disk." This does not support the argument that privacy and security make location irrelevant.
Then we are presented with this: "But it did not encrypt data at rest, and had no immediate plans to introduce the protection." This makes it sound like location is very important to security and privacy--that someone could entire a facility by force and read the data.
The article acheives nothing other than quoting a single-sentence, questionable claim. It presents the claim, then a number of partially related statements that are presented as "discussion" of the claim but that actually have very little to do with it. I wouldn't be surprised if the article twists what Feigenbaum actually said for sensationalistic purposes.
This article represents the worst type of "journalism".
Until we have one world government, differing laws on data privacy mean you have added considerable complexity for the savings of using their cloud. Maybe it is a worthwhile trade-off, maybe not. But he is silly making such a blanket statement. If you work for a company that contracts with the US Government you may be aware of ITAR and the various rules about where data can be stored.
In general, to me, the cost savings is far over shadowed by the increased risk. Even if you mitigate the risk by doing your homework and picking a state with laws that you agree with...you've just spent quite some time and money on that research.
Blar.
As it does become costlier to 'keep all data', regarding business data, when using a data or document 'classification' method which identifies data that poses greater risks for the organization, regulatory and\or legal, or in unnecessary costs, once the data can be moved from 'riskiest' to 'least risky', maybe then it becomes acceptable to introduce the 'unknown' of 'where' the data is located, (if you keep it, at all), but surely not while the data is classified as 'risky'.
cjacobs001
businesses should worry about security and privacy of data, rather than where it is stored.
But the place your data is stored is directly relevant to its security and privacy...
"What sane person could live in this world and not be crazy?"
RMS cares.