3 ms·

You know what the worse thing about this is? It is that the momentum of this "put it in the cloud" will carry over to late-comers like government/s, who will d

You know what the worse thing about this is? It is that the momentum of this "put it in the cloud" will carry over to late-comers like government/s, who will dump huge swaths of personal data that should never sit in a "public-cloud" because even when the IT-sec guy warned against it, some x-cloud-provider-sales-guy wooed the thick-headed upper-aboves and then ... attacks on that "public-cloud" will become wholesale with some script-kiddy (it could even be a 13 year old running a script) will then have personally identifiable info of x-amount of citizens. Managing infrastructure is a controllable-cost for any company, and if your company is not doing it right, that should indicate a bigger inefficiency problem in the organization (as a whole).

angelbob 11y ago
Most controllable costs get outsourced. It's not that everybody can't run their own datacenter. It's that often it makes a lot of sense not to. You're implicitly assuming that having not-terribly-tech-savvy organizations (like governments) protect their own data is somehow better. In theory you could keep all the personal data not connected to the net at all, in any way. In practice, before long nobody is going to do that except extremely paranoid organizations like the NSA, CIA and military (and equivalent non-US organizations.)
- username223 11y ago
  > You're implicitly assuming that having not-terribly-tech-savvy organizations (like governments) protect their own data is somehow better. Quite often, it is. If all the data is in one place, the payoff for hacking it is much greater than if each bit of data is on a different machine. As the man said, "why do you rob banks? Because that's where the money is."
devonkim 11y ago
Most Fortune 100/500 companies are incompetent at managing the efficiency of their infrastructure for many reasons and there's a revolving door of CIOs trying to make them more efficient. DoD before cited "environment standardization" as their primary reason for buying a ton of VMware licenses rather than the usual themes of DC consolidation and business agility, which completely boggles a lot of peoples' minds even at VMware. I've been writing IT operations automation software for about a decade now and people still are having trouble with a basic "open a ticket when something breaks" workflow and having humans do things is very common. Even into 2014 I was hearing of $500k+ contracts to spend a month in meetings to wind up with a SOAP / XML-RPC call with about 40 lines of XML just to open a new ticket in some custom ticketing system... that will then be triaged by people because they have focused so little upon thinking about making their IT systems usable for their own staff. My primary concern is that if these same organizations that are that incompetent at managing their IT business in the first place go into the cloud, what's keeping them from screwing it up there too? All it takes is for someone to push an AWS access key to a Git repo and half of the US could be getting their identities stolen. I think this is what the conversation really means when people say that enterprises are still scared of cloud security a decade into the cloud IaaS movement. In reality, they're scared of their own organizations' competence to handle the power of cloud systems.

angelbob 11y ago

Most controllable costs get outsourced. It's not that everybody can't run their own datacenter. It's that often it makes a lot of sense not to. You're implicitly assuming that having not-terribly-tech-savvy organizations (like governments) protect their own data is somehow better. In theory you could keep all the personal data not connected to the net at all, in any way. In practice, before long nobody is going to do that except extremely paranoid organizations like the NSA, CIA and military (and equivalent non-US organizations.)

username223 11y ago
> You're implicitly assuming that having not-terribly-tech-savvy organizations (like governments) protect their own data is somehow better. Quite often, it is. If all the data is in one place, the payoff for hacking it is much greater than if each bit of data is on a different machine. As the man said, "why do you rob banks? Because that's where the money is."

devonkim 11y ago

Most Fortune 100/500 companies are incompetent at managing the efficiency of their infrastructure for many reasons and there's a revolving door of CIOs trying to make them more efficient. DoD before cited "environment standardization" as their primary reason for buying a ton of VMware licenses rather than the usual themes of DC consolidation and business agility, which completely boggles a lot of peoples' minds even at VMware. I've been writing IT operations automation software for about a decade now and people still are having trouble with a basic "open a ticket when something breaks" workflow and having humans do things is very common. Even into 2014 I was hearing of $500k+ contracts to spend a month in meetings to wind up with a SOAP / XML-RPC call with about 40 lines of XML just to open a new ticket in some custom ticketing system... that will then be triaged by people because they have focused so little upon thinking about making their IT systems usable for their own staff. My primary concern is that if these same organizations that are that incompetent at managing their IT business in the first place go into the cloud, what's keeping them from screwing it up there too? All it takes is for someone to push an AWS access key to a Git repo and half of the US could be getting their identities stolen. I think this is what the conversation really means when people say that enterprises are still scared of cloud security a decade into the cloud IaaS movement. In reality, they're scared of their own organizations' competence to handle the power of cloud systems.