The example you bring up in Sweden is exactly what I'm talking against. Stuff was outsourced to other companies for the lowest bidder, who were not held remotel

The example you bring up in Sweden is exactly what I'm talking against. Stuff was outsourced to other companies for the lowest bidder, who were not held remotely as accountable as the government. >IBM took over the agency's IT operations, and "IBM used subcontractors abroad, making sensitive information and an entire database of Swedish drivers’ licences accessible by foreign technicians who did not have the usual security clearance". IBM used subcontractors, which is the profit maximizing stuff I'm talking about. When you pass stuff off to a for-profit corporation, they're going to do what they can to maximize profit, even if it screws the government over, because people will blame the government, not them. >When the cost go up by 200%-300%, suddenly the idea of running your own data center sounds much cheaper. It ended up being the highest single cost the departments had, excluding salaries and rent. you can get quite a nice data center for those billions. The costs never were lower though. They just looked lower on paper because the bill was less. But they weren't actually getting what they paid for. There are already cloud providers certified for government use (at least in the US). But you don't need to pay a company to pay some other company. Government employees can do that fine.