[133199] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Cloud proof of failure - was:: wikileaks unreachable
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Mon Dec 6 09:16:31 2010
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@americafree.tv>
In-Reply-To: <8C26A4FDAE599041A13EB499117D3C286B296B78@ex-mb-1.corp.atlasnetworks.us>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 09:16:24 -0500
To: Nathan Eisenberg <nathan@atlasnetworks.us>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Dec 6, 2010, at 4:49 AM, Nathan Eisenberg wrote:
>> The cloud is a failure. Too easy to get it down.
>> I guess wikileaks returning to dedicated hosting proofs that.
>=20
> No, it just proves that organizational decisions are made by human =
beings that have values. Whether or not those values are 'right' isn't =
the point - the point is that the technology isn't what failed here.
>=20
> There are plenty of dedicated server hosts that would have shut off =
wikileaks under political pressure - and there are plenty of 'cloud' =
hosts who would have kept them up. I don't think we can draw any =
pass/fail conclusions WRT cloud computing (defined here as =
virtualization-as-a-service) from the removal of Wikileaks from S3.
I do, but not because of Amazon specifically. (As far as I know, =
Amazon's decision depended not at all on where its servers were located =
or that they were decentralized.)
In a cloud hosting environment, you typically don't know where your data =
and servers are, and thus you don't know what legal and political =
pressures they may be subject to. If that means that in practice you are =
subject to the combination of any pressure that can be applied to any =
one of the hosting centers maintained by your hosting provider, then =
"the cloud" indeed would seem pretty unattractive to anyone with =
politically or socially controversial content.
Regards
Marshall
>=20
> Nathan
>=20
>=20
>=20
