Feds: We Need Priority Access To Cloud Resources 183
New submitter BButlerNWW writes "Federal agencies must be assured priority and uninterrupted access to public cloud resources before fully embracing the technology for national security and emergency response IT functions, a recent report finds. It recommends creating a program to develop a system to ensure federal organizations receive 'first-in-line' access to cloud-based resources during emergency situations."
How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
What about business continuity? What about friends, families and coworkers staying in touch? What about private companies that run CRITICAL infrastructure, like ISP data centers?
Fuck the feds. Just because it's government employees doesn't mean that it outstrips all other considerations, bar none. They act otherwise because if they can convince enough people, they get more money and power for themselves.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only rulers, but corrupt, entitled rulers demanding huge amounts of money for political favors.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians are corrupt. This is not new. It is the reason this country was founded on the notion that government should be granted very limited power. Humans are imperfect. The original design of our system of government was based on accepting that imperfection, and limiting the power that anyone can wield.
Re:How about no? (Score:4, Insightful)
Which means that you can't let corporate leaders have power to change the laws at will through political contributions, either.
The right is paying way too little attention to the amount of power corporations wield. It's not just about politicians anymore.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Only have voluntary power/wealth
B) Must use the government to abuse its power
If you reduce the power that the government has, you eliminate corporate abuses because all corporate abuses need the government.
The difference between a megacorporation and the government are huge. Walmart does not force you to purchase its products or face imprisonment, but thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling the government can. You can choose never to support a megacorporation or any corporation if you so choose. For example, I don't buy Sony products because of their policies with DRM and rootkits and removing features (as in the PS3), that means Sony doesn't get a penny from me. On the other hand, there are numerous things that I don't agree with the US government with, yet they force me to pay taxes (essentially stealing) via the barrel of a gun.
Saying that corporations are dangerous is incorrect. Corporations are only dangerous with government power, reduce government power and you reduce any damage that corporations can do to nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you reduce the power that the government has, you eliminate corporate abuses because all corporate abuses need the government.
This is an unfounded assertion. A corporation can screw you over without involving the government at all.
Are you next going to state that without the government, the mortgage crisis would not have happened? I argue it would have been much, much worse, and the people involved would likely now still be homeless.
Re:How about no? (Score:4, Insightful)
". A corporation can screw you over without involving the government at all."
Sure, they can dump toxic waste in your back yard, but only government can absolve the corporation, its owners and its employees of liability (a tort) for doing so.
"Are you next going to state that without the government, the mortgage crisis would not have happened?"
Without the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (creatures of government) the mortgage crisis would not have happened. Without TARP, HAMP, HAMA, AIG bailout, and trillions in secret Federal Reserve life support, the banks would have been forced to accept the consequences of their own actions, and the damage could have been repaired.
"people involved would likely now still be homeless."
Without the government there would be no more underwater borrowers (certainly not 11 million) and fewer foreclosures. Bankruptcy = sell your assets to pay your creditors. This cleanses that "bad debt" from the system because assets reset to market value (i.e. nobody buys an underwater mortgage asset at full value.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, they can dump toxic waste in your back yard, but only government can absolve the corporation, its owners and its employees of liability (a tort) for doing so.
By the same token, only the government can hold the corporation accountable.
Without the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (creatures of government) the mortgage crisis would not have happened. Without TARP, HAMP, HAMA, AIG bailout, and trillions in secret Federal Reserve life support, the banks would have been forced to accept the conse
Re:government dictates the terms via Fannie Mae et (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, the entire snafu can be said to be due to the government's failure to require proper mortgage paperwork in the first place.
Exactly, the entire thing was due to bad regulation. The solution isn't no regulation, but good regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
Without the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (creatures of government) the mortgage crisis would not have happened.
I disagree. It still would have happened, but it wouldn't have been as bad as it was without the Fed raising interests rates a few months after Greenspan encouraged everyone to buy Option-ARM mortgages (to name one of their bad decisions). The mortgage crisis was really a perfect storm of deregulation, fraud, hubris and greed. Had AIG not been selling un-funded CDS's with it's left hand, while loaning out it's AAA securities to investment banks and investing the cash collateral in junk (but AAA rated) mo
Re: (Score:2)
See here is the issue. I do not like defending the banks. They are full of shit and feel entitled to being saved.
Fuck them.
OTOH.
What happens when the banks loan money mostly to the people it believes can pay them back?
Well. What did happen was that the government decided that poor people need a leg up. That not enough of them were getting loans. The government MANDATED that loans be less restrictive. This would not have been a problem. The banks that listened to the government would are some point fail and
Re: (Score:2)
A) Only have voluntary power/wealth
Yes, because no one has ever been wronged by a corporation that they don't do business with.
B) Must use the government to abuse its power
Do criminals require the government to abuse their power? Are you claiming that corporations cannot be criminal? Why don't we just deregulate the murder industry then, and let the invisible hand sort everything out?
Corporations are only dangerous with government power, reduce government power and you reduce any damage that corporatio
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is the primary motivation for a corporation? To make money for their shareholders.
In a free market, how do corporations get money? From providing services and products.
Are you going to pay for services/products that do not improve your quality of life? No.
Therefore, if a corporation wants to make money (which is the entire point of a corporation) it must produce products/services that improve people's quality of life, oth
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Saying that corporations are dangerous is incorrect. Corporations are only dangerous with government power, reduce government power and you reduce any damage that corporations can do to nothing.
I'm sorry Darkness404, but you hold an extremely flawed view of the world.
So explain to me the harm that a corporation has in a free market.
That's easy, just look at a time in history when the USA had a truly free market, with barely any government interference.
Corporations were polluting, abusing their employees, hiring children to work 12 hour shifts, not providing a safe working environment, etc etc etc.
None of this should be news to you. Hell, black lung disease is making a comeback in coal mining country.
Why? Because there's no enforcement of regulation and it's cheaper for the mining corp to not fix their safety equipment.
I suspect the problem with your worldview is that it conflates free markets with competitive markets.
History shows us that these are not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
So explain to me the harm that a corporation has in a free market.
The harm that a corporation has in a free market is to use its size to commit anticompetetive acts that make the market no longer free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So explain to me the harm that a corporation has in a free market.
Free markets do not efficiently price in externalities.
Re: (Score:2)
Free markets do not have externalities. It takes a government to allow for such concepts as 'externalities', for example when a company starts drilling for oil on some public property, this means that the company didn't actually get into the agreement with the free market over this drilling, instead the company somehow received an OK from gov't to drill there (and it also got some form of protection and likely fake insurance and limitation of liability from gov't).
Free market means that there is no gov't in
Re: (Score:2)
Free markets do not have externalities
Of course they do.
A factory or hog farm opens upwind from your house. The air pollution (either something like sulfur dioxide or simply the smell of pig shit) drifts on the wind. It can cost you in the form of increased health costs (e.g. asthma is more prevalent along the I-710 corridor [psr-la.org]) or from depressed resale value of your house.
A private nuclear power opens upriver from a fishing town. The heat released into the river by the plant decreases fish count, leading to lower catches by the fishermen and t
Re: (Score:3)
In a free market government isn't involved in private dealings, it is not involved in business it is not involved in money, it is not involved in labour, it is not involved in interest rates and it is not involved in trade and it does not have to be involved in contract or civil law either, I would prefer that it wasn't involved in that at all, because if gov't is involved in this, eventually it will become corrupt.
The argument about corruption is an interesting one and a valid topic, but a bit outside the scope of this discussion. You say that you "prefer that [government] wasn't involved in [contract or civil law] at all." Yet you said before that "Should a factory be throwing their pollution my way, I immediately have a claim against that company in the free market." If not for the government instituting the tort framework, you wouldn't have a claim against the company.
If a free market is one with NO government
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand how Blackwater(whatever) and Pinkerton refute any arguments made by the parent. They can cause harm, as can any business or individual, but only government can grant them free license to break the law and commit atrocities with full legal immunity. Not to mention the fact that these companies largely exist by fulfilling government contracts.
"without regulation, you have circa-1900 America - 16 hour workdays, minimal pay, zero safety controls and child labor."
Plus a thriving industrial
Re: (Score:2)
I left a journal entry on the ACA ruling fiasco and I use the example of what the 16th amendment is actually about and how it is used by the federal gov't. [slashdot.org] Personal income taxes are unconstitutional and are collected unconstitutionally against the decisions by SCOTUS.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more about us. We have consistently abdicated our powers for relatively small payouts. A little social safety net here, some security theater there. Every time we clamor for government to intrude into some new area, we empower politicians at our expense. If politicians hadn't been handed unheard-of power over the past 80 years, what exactly would corporations be buying with their campaign donations? We like to act as if we have been wronged, when in reality we have done it to ourselves.
Re: (Score:2)
"you can't let corporate leaders have power to change the laws at will through political contributions, either."
Corporate leaders cannot change a damned thing through "political contributions"! Only elected officials have the power to make and enact laws. If they change laws to serve the corporations instead of the people, it's a problem with GOVERNMENT.
The point is that if government is small and their power is strictly limited (as it should be!) then it doesn't really matter how evil and corrupt a certa
Re: (Score:2)
Limited by whom? Stop using the passive and name the entity that will stop the government from simply assuming more power yet fails to use dictatorial power itself. A civic-minded populace can do it, sure, but it also tends to extend the role of the government to help further various agenda
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's where "federal" has become quite a misnomer. This is becoming more and more a national government.
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
This article is just anti-government spin and alarmism. It is government policy to move as much computation as possible into the *public* cloud. This report just says that the public cloud, at the moment, is probably not ready for "national security and emergency preparedness" tasks. The report goes on to give examples of some of the service level agreement requirements that would be required ("continuous monitoring of the cloud infrastructure by the provider, third-party audits, data encryption and various certifications and accreditations, including continuously evolving accreditation requirements from the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program").
Anyone arguing against this is going to have to produce a coherent rationale for using the public cloud for national security and emergency preparedness tasks, and show that public cloud providers like Amazon and Microsoft will continue to operate effectively in a national security / emergency situation. Of course, "national security" is an over-broad umbrella that is used to shield too many places from the public view, but that is a another argument...
Yes, but why? [Re:How about no?] (Score:2)
This article is just anti-government spin and alarmism. It is government policy to move as much computation as possible into the *public* cloud.
I've indeed heard that, but no one has ever explained to me why the federal government should want to use the (non-government) cloud.
The "cloud" makes sense for small and even medium sized businesses; they can make use of the economy of scale of the huge business computational power, which makes particular sense if you only intermittently need large computing capacity or requirements for storage, or, if you don't have good forecasts for how much computing you need, you can buy it as you go. But the governm
Re: (Score:2)
The "cloud" makes sense for small and even medium sized businesses
In what way? Before any company considers using remote services which is really what the so called "Cloud" is (this is what it was called in the early 1980's) they have to determine if benefits verses cons are worth it. Each company whether small, medium or large has to consider security as a top priority. As an example consider a Law Firm, you would virtually want a guarantee written in blood that your data which may only be a Terra Byte. is going to be secure from prying eyes.
Re: (Score:3)
The single most important reason for our Federal government to advocate public cloud computing isnot about emergency resources or any such performance features.
It's about surveillance. In the cloud, they only need to deal with the provider, and have access to everything - warrants not necessary. My corporate server is behind a firewall that offers at least minimal resistance. My home server is even more difficult, not because it's any more well secured, but because the government can't so easily coerce th
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. And while they're at it, have them rewrite their websites to take advantage of this year's secure web programming language -> PHP. Then have them rewrite their apps in C or C++, for speed / security reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Because someone will tell them this is cheaper. Because they already use some non governement owned infrastructure do for various things ( ie, last time I looked, the phone line were not private one to be used only for governement, the cars, etc ). In fact, even the weapons are not made by the governement directly, but by private companies ( not that this is good, or desirable, and I know that's more complex that ust public/private )
I think they are just saying "if someone want to propose to put our infrast
Re: (Score:2)
Cheaper is not a variable in an emergency situaton, except to define the cause and ultimate cost. Being cheap on preparation will cause total costs to increase disproportionately to the up front costs of preparing adequately.
Example - shortchanging things such as drinking water and sanitation supplies can result in unnecessary deaths. I don't think we can arrive at an acceptable cost/benefit analysis for saving our mothers' lives in the aftermath of a hurricane jus because they couldn't get water to drink
Re:How about no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the HELL would you want to risk matters of national security being sent over the public cloud!>?!?
You'd think that matters of high security would warrant their OWN PRIVATE Government run cloud servers...wouldn't you?
That's pretty much what they're saying, elaborating on the whys, in case some bean counter attacks the government for not doing it as cheap as possible.
Re: (Score:3)
You might want to stick your head out of your own.
ANY organisation wich manage critical infrastructure, and it does not matter if it's critical for "them" or for the "public" should really think of it's policies when it comes to the cloud.
The real issue is that some bunch of idiots said "hyeaa we are all going to the cloud because it is sooo cheeappp", and so "hype" and all this "doublgoodness"...
And someone surprisingly enought wrote: well if you want to put critical infrastructure in the "public cloud" yo
Re:How about no? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
All this talk about 'cyberwar' and what do they suggest? The cyber-warfare equivalent of putting air defenses in a hospital near the front. Even with proper SLAs, you paint a giant target on everyone around you.
What can we expect? Probably demanding that the hospital be armored and sealed up which will drive up costs for everyone without accomplishing what they intend.
Re: (Score:2)
We come from the government trust us... We are the best of the best...
Having done work with the Government, it puts my mind to ease about all the conspiracy theories out there. These people think they are Top Minds, while they are the biggest idiots out there. I doubt they would be able to handle any of those Conspiracies out there.
Re: (Score:2)
What about them? If you give your CRITICAL infrastructure to be run by someone else, then you are a moron. This obviously goes even more strongly for actually critical emergency response functions where outages will cost lives rather than mere money.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I like the idea.
See, I've been charting cloud outages. If they push everything onto the cloud, no matter what the cloud operator tells them about 99.99999% up-time, they'll get hit, and will have downsized / pissed off their home IT to the point that nothing will ever work right again.
They have cash? (Score:2)
They can pay for first priority
Re:They have cash? (Score:5, Insightful)
They can pay for first priority.
They can, and should. I can see how access is critical, especially during events that may knock out parts of the infrastructure. Paying for the access is both fair and in spirit with the economic system they are working within.
Of course, if they do so, some people will immediately point to their cost structure, compare it to the price paid by a novelty item manufacturer for hte same resources (minus any guarantees) and promptly declare that govermnent is inept, corrupt and wasting money.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the government can either do it itself and be accused of being behind the time, wasting money on a depreciating asset and having over the top security requirements or;
has lost control of its IT infrastructure and is paying too much for the cloud services.
They aren't going to win.
Re: (Score:2)
And those people would generally be correct. Them feds do like to feel special, just go take a look at all those special shops catering especially to them. Sure, the government does have functions that are more important than others, and of course they'll pay for it. Also, the government is notoriously bad at getting good deals, so there's another reason they pay over the odds. And wastage? Not everything they do is really that important. Just look at Belgium: Having to limp along without a government for over a year turns out to've been a boon to the economy. Not to paint myself libertarianal or whatever, just noting that a lot of rulery and fuzzbutting is essentially unnecessary and can safely be done without. Yes, them feds do fulfull roles that are hard to do otherwise, and yes, there's a price tag. Yes, they're also full of themselves and inconsiderate with other people's money.
I wrote three sentences. Three short, easy to understant sentences. Even that is too much for you to actually comprehend.
With enemies like this, who needs friends?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mmmm. Sounds like somebody's come up with a new way to transfer MORE wealth from individual taxpayers into corporate coffers!
If you're not a senator now, son, you have all the makings of a successful one!
don't see why not. (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, the government and corporations are fuck buddies, giving them better access would be part of the deal.
How about this, the government makes a fucking cloud server, make sure it's up to the security they want, and open it up for the public to use, instead of relying on a corporation who only cares about making as much money as possible for the 1%ers.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they could just run their own datacenter, with their own servers to perform necessary IT function. Like they already do today.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless a corporation provides a good service, it makes no money. Therefore, it is in the corporation's best interest to create the best service possible so it can make the most money. It has the net result in a corporation creating a much bet
Information superhighway redux? (Score:2)
Feds: We Need Priority Access [Your] Cloud [Data] (Score:2)
Give them an inch, [slashdot.org]... now they are back for...
Why do they even need the cloud? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they need the cloud? How is the cloud better than your OWN well connected servers?
Re:Why do they even need the cloud? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The irony here, of course, is the internet was originally developed to be a way for the government to stay up and running when there was an attack or major disaster. Now they are trying to use the internet to make themse
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Any moron who puts critical government functions in "the cloud" ( a stupid marketing term for someone else's servers) should be fired.
Re: (Score:3)
Bingo! I see no reason to use the public clouds for federal work. The U.S. government is big enough to run their own clouds where they can set the priorities. In fact, it would probably be cheaper and more secure in the long run. Who among us would turn government security over to Microsoft, Amazon, Google, or any of the other commercial entities? Just the privacy issues alone are a full-employment program for lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that's easy. There has been an official state of emergency in the US since 1995 [fas.org], continued by Bush, and continued by Obama. The US is in a permanent state of emergency, and any emergency powers must be considered permanent powers.
Re:Personally... (Score:4, Informative)
They do need to be first in line. About fifteen years ago I took a class at a local college, and the instructor was in charge of the Illinois Secretary of State's mainframe. We all got a tour of the inside of the impressive thing. That state trooper pulling over that car needs computer access a hell of a lot more than you do, and my instructor proudly stated that they had zero downtime for five years. They have two natural gas generators in case of power outage (redundancies everywhere), that sort of thing.
If your town gets hit by a tsunami or tornado or earthquake, FEMA and your state emergency agency is going to need those computers. You probably won't.
That Gets Back To Their Definition Of "Emergency" (Score:2)
A state trooper needs the description of a gunman recently seen in the area? OK.
A state trooper needs to get his quote of parking tickets filled ASAP? Not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's consider a natural disaster - say, a massive earthquake and tsunami hits just off the coast of San Francisco - not inconceivable, and we saw the devastation wrought by just such an event in Japan just a little over a year ago.
So, you've got entire towns wiped out, roads impassable, electricity, phone, water service completely offline, but let's imagine cell service is still largely intact in the area. Now, think back t
Here's an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't use the cloud for national security and emergency response functions.
Problem solved.
Re:Here's an idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are living in a culture where the entire political "debate" is revolving around the fallacy of false choices. If we were having a healthy debate both sides would be admitting that there are at least some areas where it is appropriate for government to be a healthy size and spend resources. Emergency management, in my humble opinion and setting all theories about FEMA set aside, is one of those areas.
It shouldn't be outsourced because you can't truly rely on a profit-based agency in a true emergency. The goal of the modern corporation is selfish and doesn't care if anyone else survives the emergency or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Not if you price it right. Associate a really high cost for each death.
cloud in the government (Score:5, Insightful)
I work for a government agency (not going to name the name), but there has been push for the last few years to put much of our processing and data storage in the public cloud.
How stupid. This type of stuff normally comes from the upper management whom the vendors happen to entertain on golf courses and parties every now and then (just like the vendors push any product there.) But the cloud is different. Somehow the jackets from MS, Google, IBM, HP and Oracle have execs everywhere up to the upper echelons convinced that it will save money on IT budget. By tying ourselves up into the cloud, we are allowing for 1. potential leak of information through public storage and 2. potential denial of availability to the information when such storage and/or processing center(s) become unavailable due to network outage, disasters, national emergency, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It will save plenty of money until the system breaks down and the corps. involved don't give a shit that you're down.
They you'll spend all the saved money and more converting the infrastructure back to what is should of been in the first place.
The suits will look great in the short term and by the time the thing blows up they'll be long gone.
Re: (Score:2)
As I also work (as a contractor) for a agency (that I've mentioned before, if you really care) ...
I see it as being two things:
Security (Score:3)
Why doesn't our wonderful government just outsource everything IT to India and all weapons manufacturing to China while they're at it?
I mean really...what are they thinking?
Re:Security (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren't. We've managed to elect the biggest group of idiots to power in world history.
And it isn't just the Republicans either... so don't go there. The only people that can get on the ballot for any race are inept empty suits.
Me too. (Score:3)
And I'm sure most people who are considering using the cloud for serious business will expect 99.999% uptime.
Granted, I don't get it right now from my ISP or my web hosting service, but they also don't try to sell me the world when they know they can't possibly deliver.
The article is 100% reasonable (Score:5, Informative)
As is often the case, the headline is completely misleading. The federal government isn't demanding first priority to cloud resources.
They are saying that they can't move national security and emergency services into public clouds until the cloud providers can give them the guaranteed uptime that they have now with dedicated servers, so they're going to keep running those services on dedicated servers. This is worth talking about in that it's an exception to the general rule that the federal government is trying to move everything to cloud providers.
The article even notes that there are some specialized cloud providers (e.g. Terramark's Federal group) that offer a higher level SLA than the public cloud providers, specifically aimed at providing the kind of SLA required for national security and emergency services.
Please RTFA before flaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Please RTFA before flaming.
You must be new here...
Re: (Score:2)
Banks vs. Under Mattress (Score:4, Insightful)
Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
What they could do is take the cloud resources and "bottle them up" if you will, inside of some boxes that they own and manage. We'll call them "servers". Then, they could put these boxes in some secure facility that holds the data for them. We'll it a "data center".
Nah, that'd never work.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't want to PAY for it until they actually need it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are benefits to "cloud" computing and resources, but blindly throwing things into it is short sighted. There is a reason the company I work for has its own dark fiber and data centers. It's the best way to control your data when your data is critical and/or confidential.
Also, my apologies for missing a "call" in my second to last se
First question: how will the law be abused? (Score:2)
1) Get law passed giving government priority access to resources during emergency.
2) Declare emergency.
3) Force cloud providers to shut down services to organisations/people you do not like because you need their resources.
4) ???
5) Profit
It is not "censorship". It is "emergency resource allocation management".
Re: (Score:2)
It is not "censorship". It is "Emergency Resource Allocation Management".
how fitting, the University of Bradford uses ERaM as acronym for the Ethnicity, Racism and the Media Programme...
Reading Comprehension (Score:2)
I know it's SOP to not read beyond the headline or if you really want to the first sentence but the blatant failure to grasp the nature of the article is a bit sad.
The article is not suggesting that the government should demand first priority to the cloud, the article is pointing out several reasons why certain government functions should not be moved to the cloud (god I cringe just typing that damn word, We need a weather article so it can be used in a reasonable context). One of those reasons is it woul
Re: (Score:2)
The interstate example is almost exactly wrong considering the funding source for its creation and original purpose so strike that.
NOT AGAIN (Score:4, Interesting)
The is just another is a long series of recent articles that have totally distorted the original news.
First it was EPICs reaction to Obama's executive order.
Then it was the Nature article on tree rings.
Now it's a complete distortion of an government study on use of distributed IT resources.
Slashdot has turned into the Fox equivalent of nerd news.
They need priority access? (Score:3)
Emergenct??? (Score:2)
Oh, and it reminds of the fact that USA cannot have standing army, unless they have declared war to someone...
Let's all donate (Score:2)
We can let our computers connect into a central cloud management system and provide cloud service instances to the government when their national security is more important than us using computers ... the CROWD CLOUD. Yeah, that will work just fine.
Do they not realize what a cloud is? (Score:2)
Cloud by its very definition is that it exists globally with multiple routes to redundant copies of the data should any location; or nation; "fail". Does the US government want its data housed on servers placed all over the world? The cloud cannot exist solely in a single country, or two, or even three.
If they need assured priority... (Score:2)
Let them build their own "cloud". Siezing other people's property is not the way to guarantee uninterrupted access (assuming, of course, that that is what this is actually about).
All your cloud are belong to us! (Score:2)
Women and children (Score:2)
hold on a second! (Score:2)
Federal agencies must be assured priority and uninterrupted access to public cloud resources before fully embracing the technology for national security and emergency response IT functions
if this system is required for emergency functions then WHY THE FUCK IS IT "IN THE CLOUD"?!
Re: (Score:2)
the commercial world where access is purchased and thus entitled based on a little thing called the constitution
That you actually believe this is frightening on levels I can't even begin to express. I mean, really. You think that stuff that's purchased somehow gives you entitlement to the Constitution? That shows such a massive miss-understanding of what the Constitution is and does that it's actually worry some that you have the ability to vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Property Rights are very specific, and the Government can take away any amount of your property they feel like, they just have to give you Due Process.
Eminent Domain
Taxation/Liens
Confiscation of Property
Fines
You'll find that the Constitution doesn't really say that just because you paid Money for it, it's all yours whinewhine! Really it says the opposite.
Not to mention, Cloud Services, you're not even BUYING anything. You're renting, with an incredibly obnoxious EULA holding you by the gonnads threatening
AWS GOV cloud (Score:2)
AWS has a specific cloud area just for the government. Commercial users are not in there at all. Isn't that good enough?
Re: (Score:2)
That's the worst poem that I've ever read. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you picking on mudskippers?