5 ms·

If you dispute a law, your issue is with the government that passed and enforces it, not companies abiding by that law.

smnrchrds 8y ago
This is not a legal requirement. Amazon and Microsoft do not do this, nor do Heroku, DigitalOcean,and countless other small and large companies. Google's interpretation of the law is unconventional and almost unique. (To the best of my knowledge, the only other company who interprets the law this way is Oracle, and that's saying something).
- kpil 8y ago
  It's hard to tell until it's decided in a court. Until then it's everyone's best guess. Googles compliance officers might find it not worth the risk. There might also be other reasons one would prefer to follow the spirit of the law and help put pressure on two dictatorships where at least one of them seeds instability in many countries.
- miracle2k 8y ago
  The IBM Softlayer Cloud does, or used to do it, as well.
miracle2k 8y ago
Other cloud providers don't do it. The idea that letting TCP packets be routed to the Google Cloud datacenter falls under "providing services" is clearly an incredibly expansive reading. I expect Google to make a little bit of an effort here.
drivingmenuts 8y ago
> If you dispute a law, your issue is with the government that passed and enforces it, not companies abiding by that law. It's another vector to apply pressure to get the issue resolved. There's the direct course (you to your congressperson) which likely won't matter, unless you have enough like-minded individuals all applying the same pressure. Then there's the indirect course (business to congressperson) which will likely matter more, since the business can donate larger sums of money, all at once. Politics is the opposite of business, as far as cash-flow is concerned. Business wants sustained, regular amounts to allow for forward planning. Politics wants bursted, large amounts of cash to immediately address issues of the day.

This is not a legal requirement. Amazon and Microsoft do not do this, nor do Heroku, DigitalOcean,and countless other small and large companies. Google's interpretation of the law is unconventional and almost unique. (To the best of my knowledge, the only other company who interprets the law this way is Oracle, and that's saying something).

kpil 8y ago
It's hard to tell until it's decided in a court. Until then it's everyone's best guess. Googles compliance officers might find it not worth the risk. There might also be other reasons one would prefer to follow the spirit of the law and help put pressure on two dictatorships where at least one of them seeds instability in many countries.
miracle2k 8y ago
The IBM Softlayer Cloud does, or used to do it, as well.

miracle2k 8y ago

Other cloud providers don't do it. The idea that letting TCP packets be routed to the Google Cloud datacenter falls under "providing services" is clearly an incredibly expansive reading. I expect Google to make a little bit of an effort here.

drivingmenuts 8y ago

> If you dispute a law, your issue is with the government that passed and enforces it, not companies abiding by that law. It's another vector to apply pressure to get the issue resolved. There's the direct course (you to your congressperson) which likely won't matter, unless you have enough like-minded individuals all applying the same pressure. Then there's the indirect course (business to congressperson) which will likely matter more, since the business can donate larger sums of money, all at once. Politics is the opposite of business, as far as cash-flow is concerned. Business wants sustained, regular amounts to allow for forward planning. Politics wants bursted, large amounts of cash to immediately address issues of the day.