3 ms·

GovernmentS can't host their services on Google's or Amazon's cloud for example. (the US are not counting since this is THE government many others are not trus

by erelde 10y ago

GovernmentS can't host their services on Google's or Amazon's cloud for example. (the US are not counting since this is THE government many others are not trusting and the home of the public clouds)

mritun 10y ago
They already do: https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/ https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/
us0r 10y ago
Amazon's largest customer is the CIA. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-details-about-the-cias-deal-with-amazon/374632/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-de...
- Retric 10y ago
  That's a private cloud built by Amazon for the CIA and does not run on Amazon's network.
kesor 10y ago
The FUD is strong, but that was exactly the point of that article. Having old-fashioned people in goverments who disagree that they should ditch their datacenters and start using clouds, is backwards thinking. Just like goverments find ways to allow private companies to run their cellular networks, phone networks, tv cable networks, power grids - the same reasoning should allow private companies (public clouds) who do it much better than goverment employees, to run their compute services.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- cyberpunk 10y ago
  I'm not so sure. There's a lot of gov.uk stuff running on non-gvt gear these days thanks to GDS; (aws, skyscape, others on gcloud) -- the problem with how that's gone though is while they're actually running in "the cloud" and tryig to do things more 'modern' the architecture has to be accredited by a bunch of GCHQ folks who apparently are totally insane yet you can never actually talk to. And so you end up only being able to build what looks like a 2000's datacentre arch with 500 /28 vlans and weird IDS appliances and so on, otherwise CESG won't let you hook up to any of the data-sources you probably need. In that style arch, where you can't just provision things and changing even a netmask requires your whole architecture to be re-accredited otherwise you'll lose access to the PSN; what possible benefits are there of running in the cloud? It's more expensive, needs constant oversight from accreditors and generally sucks. The legacy gov DCs are a shitshow too; but that's down to people like capgemini and ibm or whoever and well, fuck them.
  - kesor 10y ago
    You mean the IBM that is doing $10m contracts and then paying $30m for screwing these up? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-25/ibm-to-pay-over-$30m-in-compensation-for-census-fail/8057240 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-25/ibm-to-pay-over-$30m-i...
heisenbit 10y ago
Indeed that is a valid argument. The argument that the US government is using Amazon is bogus since the threat to data stored on Amazon is precisely the US government strong arming Amazon. Acceptable to the US. Not elsewhere.

by erelde 10y ago

GovernmentS can't host their services on Google's or Amazon's cloud for example. (the US are not counting since this is THE government many others are not trusting and the home of the public clouds)

mritun 10y ago

They already do: https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/ https://aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/

us0r 10y ago

Amazon's largest customer is the CIA. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-details-about-the-cias-deal-with-amazon/374632/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-de...

Retric 10y ago
That's a private cloud built by Amazon for the CIA and does not run on Amazon's network.

kesor 10y ago

The FUD is strong, but that was exactly the point of that article. Having old-fashioned people in goverments who disagree that they should ditch their datacenters and start using clouds, is backwards thinking. Just like goverments find ways to allow private companies to run their cellular networks, phone networks, tv cable networks, power grids - the same reasoning should allow private companies (public clouds) who do it much better than goverment employees, to run their compute services.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
cyberpunk 10y ago
I'm not so sure. There's a lot of gov.uk stuff running on non-gvt gear these days thanks to GDS; (aws, skyscape, others on gcloud) -- the problem with how that's gone though is while they're actually running in "the cloud" and tryig to do things more 'modern' the architecture has to be accredited by a bunch of GCHQ folks who apparently are totally insane yet you can never actually talk to. And so you end up only being able to build what looks like a 2000's datacentre arch with 500 /28 vlans and weird IDS appliances and so on, otherwise CESG won't let you hook up to any of the data-sources you probably need. In that style arch, where you can't just provision things and changing even a netmask requires your whole architecture to be re-accredited otherwise you'll lose access to the PSN; what possible benefits are there of running in the cloud? It's more expensive, needs constant oversight from accreditors and generally sucks. The legacy gov DCs are a shitshow too; but that's down to people like capgemini and ibm or whoever and well, fuck them.
- kesor 10y ago
  You mean the IBM that is doing $10m contracts and then paying $30m for screwing these up? http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-25/ibm-to-pay-over-$30m-in-compensation-for-census-fail/8057240 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-25/ibm-to-pay-over-$30m-i...

heisenbit 10y ago

Indeed that is a valid argument. The argument that the US government is using Amazon is bogus since the threat to data stored on Amazon is precisely the US government strong arming Amazon. Acceptable to the US. Not elsewhere.