Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds: We Need Priority Access To Cloud Resources

Posted by samzenpus on from the get-to-the-back-of-the-line dept.

New submitter BButlerNWW writes "Federal agencies must be assured priority and uninterrupted access to public cloud resources before fully embracing the technology for national security and emergency response IT functions, a recent report finds. It recommends creating a program to develop a system to ensure federal organizations receive 'first-in-line' access to cloud-based resources during emergency situations."

26 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. How about no? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What about business continuity? What about friends, families and coworkers staying in touch? What about private companies that run CRITICAL infrastructure, like ISP data centers?

    Fuck the feds. Just because it's government employees doesn't mean that it outstrips all other considerations, bar none. They act otherwise because if they can convince enough people, they get more money and power for themselves.

    1. Re:How about no? by INT_QRK · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The U.S. federal government mindset is shifting inexorably from its intended role of democratic representatives to that of rulers. So sad to see.

    2. Re:How about no? by chrb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This article is just anti-government spin and alarmism. It is government policy to move as much computation as possible into the *public* cloud. This report just says that the public cloud, at the moment, is probably not ready for "national security and emergency preparedness" tasks. The report goes on to give examples of some of the service level agreement requirements that would be required ("continuous monitoring of the cloud infrastructure by the provider, third-party audits, data encryption and various certifications and accreditations, including continuously evolving accreditation requirements from the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program").

      Anyone arguing against this is going to have to produce a coherent rationale for using the public cloud for national security and emergency preparedness tasks, and show that public cloud providers like Amazon and Microsoft will continue to operate effectively in a national security / emergency situation. Of course, "national security" is an over-broad umbrella that is used to shield too many places from the public view, but that is a another argument...

    3. Re:How about no? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only rulers, but corrupt, entitled rulers demanding huge amounts of money for political favors.

    4. Re:How about no? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why the HELL would you want to risk matters of national security being sent over the public cloud!>?!?

      You'd think that matters of high security would warrant their OWN PRIVATE Government run cloud servers...wouldn't you?

      That's pretty much what they're saying, elaborating on the whys, in case some bean counter attacks the government for not doing it as cheap as possible.

    5. Re:How about no? by hoppo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's where "federal" has become quite a misnomer. This is becoming more and more a national government.

    6. Re:How about no? by hoppo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Politicians are corrupt. This is not new. It is the reason this country was founded on the notion that government should be granted very limited power. Humans are imperfect. The original design of our system of government was based on accepting that imperfection, and limiting the power that anyone can wield.

    7. Re:How about no? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This view bleeds over from how the government uses the radio spectrum. On the channels they use, they have priority access and all other must wait for them because it's (theoretically) public safety. But the same doesn't hold true for any and all data storage. Cloud data storage is a convenience, not for critical data. They need to be reeducated if they think they can use the cloud for mission critical data they need immediate access to.

    8. Re:How about no? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which means that you can't let corporate leaders have power to change the laws at will through political contributions, either.

      The right is paying way too little attention to the amount of power corporations wield. It's not just about politicians anymore.

    9. Re:How about no? by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except for the fact that corporations:

      A) Only have voluntary power/wealth

      B) Must use the government to abuse its power

      If you reduce the power that the government has, you eliminate corporate abuses because all corporate abuses need the government.

      The difference between a megacorporation and the government are huge. Walmart does not force you to purchase its products or face imprisonment, but thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling the government can. You can choose never to support a megacorporation or any corporation if you so choose. For example, I don't buy Sony products because of their policies with DRM and rootkits and removing features (as in the PS3), that means Sony doesn't get a penny from me. On the other hand, there are numerous things that I don't agree with the US government with, yet they force me to pay taxes (essentially stealing) via the barrel of a gun.

      Saying that corporations are dangerous is incorrect. Corporations are only dangerous with government power, reduce government power and you reduce any damage that corporations can do to nothing.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    10. Re:How about no? by hoppo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's more about us. We have consistently abdicated our powers for relatively small payouts. A little social safety net here, some security theater there. Every time we clamor for government to intrude into some new area, we empower politicians at our expense. If politicians hadn't been handed unheard-of power over the past 80 years, what exactly would corporations be buying with their campaign donations? We like to act as if we have been wronged, when in reality we have done it to ourselves.

    11. Re:How about no? by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So explain to me the harm that a corporation has in a free market.

      What is the primary motivation for a corporation? To make money for their shareholders.

      In a free market, how do corporations get money? From providing services and products.

      Are you going to pay for services/products that do not improve your quality of life? No.

      Therefore, if a corporation wants to make money (which is the entire point of a corporation) it must produce products/services that improve people's quality of life, otherwise it goes bankrupt. If you don't want to support a corporation, you don't have to. You can live your entire life without buying a Sony product, without buying anything from Wal-Mart, etc. If you live in the US though, you can't not fund the various wars and drone strikes without going to jail.

      Corporations therefore must produce products that the public likes at a low enough cost to remain profitable.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    12. Re:How about no? by moeinvt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ". A corporation can screw you over without involving the government at all."

      Sure, they can dump toxic waste in your back yard, but only government can absolve the corporation, its owners and its employees of liability (a tort) for doing so.

      "Are you next going to state that without the government, the mortgage crisis would not have happened?"

      Without the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (creatures of government) the mortgage crisis would not have happened. Without TARP, HAMP, HAMA, AIG bailout, and trillions in secret Federal Reserve life support, the banks would have been forced to accept the consequences of their own actions, and the damage could have been repaired.

      "people involved would likely now still be homeless."

      Without the government there would be no more underwater borrowers (certainly not 11 million) and fewer foreclosures. Bankruptcy = sell your assets to pay your creditors. This cleanses that "bad debt" from the system because assets reset to market value (i.e. nobody buys an underwater mortgage asset at full value.)

    13. Re:How about no? by moeinvt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand how Blackwater(whatever) and Pinkerton refute any arguments made by the parent. They can cause harm, as can any business or individual, but only government can grant them free license to break the law and commit atrocities with full legal immunity. Not to mention the fact that these companies largely exist by fulfilling government contracts.

      "without regulation, you have circa-1900 America - 16 hour workdays, minimal pay, zero safety controls and child labor."

      Plus a thriving industrial economy, massive growth in both productivity and real wages and a blossoming organized labor movement dealing with the abuses you describe. Not to mention the fact that millions of migrants were coming into the country to take advantage of the opportunities in the industrial economy.

      No age was a Utopia, we need a radical shift of resources away from government to achieve the balance you describe. It shouldn't cost $3.8T to enforce labor, safety and environmental laws.

    14. Re:How about no? by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Saying that corporations are dangerous is incorrect. Corporations are only dangerous with government power, reduce government power and you reduce any damage that corporations can do to nothing.

      I'm sorry Darkness404, but you hold an extremely flawed view of the world.

      So explain to me the harm that a corporation has in a free market.

      That's easy, just look at a time in history when the USA had a truly free market, with barely any government interference.
      Corporations were polluting, abusing their employees, hiring children to work 12 hour shifts, not providing a safe working environment, etc etc etc.
      None of this should be news to you. Hell, black lung disease is making a comeback in coal mining country.
      Why? Because there's no enforcement of regulation and it's cheaper for the mining corp to not fix their safety equipment.

      I suspect the problem with your worldview is that it conflates free markets with competitive markets.
      History shows us that these are not the same thing.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  2. Why do they even need the cloud? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do they need the cloud? How is the cloud better than your OWN well connected servers?

    1. Re:Why do they even need the cloud? by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is just another case of some government guy who doesn't really understanding tech and that cloud is just a marketting word thinking that it is some great new technology.

  3. Personally... by JasoninKS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Personally, I'd want to see their definition of "emergency" first. Other than that, I'd be fine with them getting priority access in an emergency situation. If an emergency hits, the NS/EP teams need that infrastructure to take care of the situation more than (for example) Amazon needing to get packages out the door.

  4. Re:They have cash? by JanneM · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can pay for first priority.

    They can, and should. I can see how access is critical, especially during events that may knock out parts of the infrastructure. Paying for the access is both fair and in spirit with the economic system they are working within.

    Of course, if they do so, some people will immediately point to their cost structure, compare it to the price paid by a novelty item manufacturer for hte same resources (minus any guarantees) and promptly declare that govermnent is inept, corrupt and wasting money.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  5. Here's an idea... by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't use the cloud for national security and emergency response functions.

    Problem solved.

    1. Re:Here's an idea... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are living in a culture where the entire political "debate" is revolving around the fallacy of false choices. If we were having a healthy debate both sides would be admitting that there are at least some areas where it is appropriate for government to be a healthy size and spend resources. Emergency management, in my humble opinion and setting all theories about FEMA set aside, is one of those areas.

      It shouldn't be outsourced because you can't truly rely on a profit-based agency in a true emergency. The goal of the modern corporation is selfish and doesn't care if anyone else survives the emergency or not.

  6. cloud in the government by sageres · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I work for a government agency (not going to name the name), but there has been push for the last few years to put much of our processing and data storage in the public cloud.
    How stupid. This type of stuff normally comes from the upper management whom the vendors happen to entertain on golf courses and parties every now and then (just like the vendors push any product there.) But the cloud is different. Somehow the jackets from MS, Google, IBM, HP and Oracle have execs everywhere up to the upper echelons convinced that it will save money on IT budget. By tying ourselves up into the cloud, we are allowing for 1. potential leak of information through public storage and 2. potential denial of availability to the information when such storage and/or processing center(s) become unavailable due to network outage, disasters, national emergency, etc.

  7. Banks vs. Under Mattress by retroworks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    GOV: "Ok, I can see the advantages of putting my savings in this "bank". But I want to have just as rapid and priority access to it as I do when I put it under my mattress, I shouldn't have to wait in line if there is a run on the bank." BANK: "Excuse me sir, I was trying to help this lady in front of you."

    --
    Gently reply
  8. Solution by digitalsolo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have a great idea for a solution.

    What they could do is take the cloud resources and "bottle them up" if you will, inside of some boxes that they own and manage. We'll call them "servers". Then, they could put these boxes in some secure facility that holds the data for them. We'll it a "data center".

    Nah, that'd never work.

    --
    Just another ignorant American.
  9. Re:Security by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They aren't. We've managed to elect the biggest group of idiots to power in world history.

    And it isn't just the Republicans either... so don't go there. The only people that can get on the ballot for any race are inept empty suits.

  10. Re:government dictates the terms via Fannie Mae et by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In fact, the entire snafu can be said to be due to the government's failure to require proper mortgage paperwork in the first place.

    Exactly, the entire thing was due to bad regulation. The solution isn't no regulation, but good regulation.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!