Feds: We Need Priority Access To Cloud Resources

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds: We Need Priority Access To Cloud Resources

Posted by samzenpus on Friday July 13, 2012 @12:08AM 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."

16 of 183 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How about no? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-13 00:11 · 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 · 2012-07-13 00:33 · 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 · 2012-07-13 00:34 · 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 · 2012-07-13 00:51 · 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 · 2012-07-13 00:55 · 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 · 2012-07-13 01:17 · 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 · 2012-07-13 01:20 · 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 Darkness404 · 2012-07-13 01:46 · 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.
8. Re:How about no? by hoppo · 2012-07-13 01:53 · 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.
9. Re:How about no? by TubeSteak · 2012-07-13 04:28 · 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!
Why do they even need the cloud? by ZorinLynx · 2012-07-13 00:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do they need the cloud? How is the cloud better than your OWN well connected servers?
Re:They have cash? by JanneM · 2012-07-13 00:25 · 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.
Here's an idea... by SQL+Error · 2012-07-13 00:27 · 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 · 2012-07-13 00:56 · 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.
cloud in the government by sageres · 2012-07-13 00:28 · 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.
Re:Security by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-13 00:59 · 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.