8 ms·

I think in the short-term the strategy is this from the article: > Or ... block all the IP addresses of Google App Engine, at the risk of blocking many applica

by bhauer 5y ago

I think in the short-term the strategy is this from the article: > Or ... block all the IP addresses of Google App Engine, at the risk of blocking many applications. having nothing to do with tracking. Anyone hosting legitimate apps in the Google ecosystsm is indirectly complicit in this and at least for my personal network, I have no concern with blocking Google App Engine holistically. Additionally, I think it's important to hurt Google as much as possible for escalating in this way. Widespread blocking of GAE may seem extreme but it's also arguably warranted.

reaperducer 5y ago
I have no concern with blocking Google App Engine holistically Unfortunately, it seems that more and more government web sites rely on Google services to function. And there's no replacement for those.
- paulryanrogers 5y ago
  How can it be legal for a government to make increasingly core services depend on these amoral, for profit monsters?
  - l33t2328 5y ago
    I’m not sure if this is a serious question, but what would this imaginary law say? The government can only do business with companies who aren’t in it for the money?
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      The US government isn't shy about adding rules for its contractors. It should be trivial for them to demand (or provide) dedicated IPs for their sites. Then they won't get caught up in the IP address blocking of GCP.
      - efitz 5y ago
        The big tech companies have all built out lobbying capabilities; such a law would end up helping big tech and harming small companies because the big companies would be involved in authoring the law and would be contributing to the sponsors and committee chairs and members to get their favorable language included. And it would all be legal and business as usual.
        HWR_14 5y ago
        They don't have to be laws. It's something that Biden can just add into every RFP the US government puts otu. But no, typically things like that don't hurt small companies.
    - KerrAvon 5y ago
      Realistically, Congress could in fact mandate that government website implementations must be transferable between software vendors. That’s both technically feasible and in line with past government requirements for hardware procurement.
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      How about that government services must be built by the government?
      - throwaway2037 5y ago
        Yes, I feel the same, at least for a lot of things. Certainly, all externally facing websites should be designed and maintained by gov't staff. From time to time, HN features high quality UK gov't websites. In the last five years, the UK gov't has made dramatic strides on "digital gov't" initiatives that benefit regular citizens. As I understand, most of those sites are built and maintained by gov't employees. This runs counter to the normal, all-prevailing attitude in UK that "any gov't is too much gov't" (or "any gov't that does not directly benefit me...").
        ssl232 5y ago
        Brit here. On your last point, there is no such widespread attitude in the UK towards government. We are historically conservative, but not libertarian. Don't forget two of the most famous and loved British institutions are the BBC and the NHS. I'm not saying such attitudes don't exist, because they do, but it's not "all-prevailing" by any stretch.
        sofixa 5y ago
        I think it's a typo/autocorrect and they meant US at the last instance instead of UK.
        gbear605 5y ago
        The Conservatives want to privatise the BBC and the NHS though - abolishing the BBC licensing fee is a recent move, and steps to privatise the NHS have been repeatedly popular among politicians over the last decade.
        azalemeth 5y ago
        The trouble is, they're mostly Microsoft and either Azure or AWS behind the scenes. The UK government as a whole seems to love Microsoft. I just worry it will be out of the frying pan and into the fire...
    - carapace 5y ago
      > but what would this imaginary law say? IANAL, but how about something like, "Government services offered via WWW must not contact commercial servers and must be fully usable with non-JS browsers."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - boondaburrah 5y ago
    The military-industrial complex would like to have a word.
- timbit42 5y ago
  Use two browsers. One where you don't block tracking and can access government and make purchases on shopping sites, and one tracking is blocked and JavaScript is turned off.
sdepablos 5y ago
The thing is that you can host the server container also in AWS https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/deploy-server-side-google-tag-manager-aws/ https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/deploy-server-side-googl... or Azure https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/server-side-tagging-azure-app-service/ https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/server-side-tagging-azur...

by bhauer 5y ago

reaperducer 5y ago

I have no concern with blocking Google App Engine holistically Unfortunately, it seems that more and more government web sites rely on Google services to function. And there's no replacement for those.

paulryanrogers 5y ago
How can it be legal for a government to make increasingly core services depend on these amoral, for profit monsters?
- l33t2328 5y ago
  I’m not sure if this is a serious question, but what would this imaginary law say? The government can only do business with companies who aren’t in it for the money?
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    The US government isn't shy about adding rules for its contractors. It should be trivial for them to demand (or provide) dedicated IPs for their sites. Then they won't get caught up in the IP address blocking of GCP.
    - efitz 5y ago
      The big tech companies have all built out lobbying capabilities; such a law would end up helping big tech and harming small companies because the big companies would be involved in authoring the law and would be contributing to the sponsors and committee chairs and members to get their favorable language included. And it would all be legal and business as usual.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        They don't have to be laws. It's something that Biden can just add into every RFP the US government puts otu. But no, typically things like that don't hurt small companies.
  - KerrAvon 5y ago
    Realistically, Congress could in fact mandate that government website implementations must be transferable between software vendors. That’s both technically feasible and in line with past government requirements for hardware procurement.
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    How about that government services must be built by the government?
    - throwaway2037 5y ago
      Yes, I feel the same, at least for a lot of things. Certainly, all externally facing websites should be designed and maintained by gov't staff. From time to time, HN features high quality UK gov't websites. In the last five years, the UK gov't has made dramatic strides on "digital gov't" initiatives that benefit regular citizens. As I understand, most of those sites are built and maintained by gov't employees. This runs counter to the normal, all-prevailing attitude in UK that "any gov't is too much gov't" (or "any gov't that does not directly benefit me...").
      - ssl232 5y ago
        Brit here. On your last point, there is no such widespread attitude in the UK towards government. We are historically conservative, but not libertarian. Don't forget two of the most famous and loved British institutions are the BBC and the NHS. I'm not saying such attitudes don't exist, because they do, but it's not "all-prevailing" by any stretch.
        sofixa 5y ago
        I think it's a typo/autocorrect and they meant US at the last instance instead of UK.
        gbear605 5y ago
        The Conservatives want to privatise the BBC and the NHS though - abolishing the BBC licensing fee is a recent move, and steps to privatise the NHS have been repeatedly popular among politicians over the last decade.
      - azalemeth 5y ago
        The trouble is, they're mostly Microsoft and either Azure or AWS behind the scenes. The UK government as a whole seems to love Microsoft. I just worry it will be out of the frying pan and into the fire...
  - carapace 5y ago
    > but what would this imaginary law say? IANAL, but how about something like, "Government services offered via WWW must not contact commercial servers and must be fully usable with non-JS browsers."
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- boondaburrah 5y ago
  The military-industrial complex would like to have a word.
timbit42 5y ago
Use two browsers. One where you don't block tracking and can access government and make purchases on shopping sites, and one tracking is blocked and JavaScript is turned off.

sdepablos 5y ago

The thing is that you can host the server container also in AWS https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/deploy-server-side-google-tag-manager-aws/ https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/deploy-server-side-googl... or Azure https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/server-side-tagging-azure-app-service/ https://www.simoahava.com/analytics/server-side-tagging-azur...