Re: A simple solution?
"Be reasonable with your analogies, can you honestly tell the difference between fresh German bread and stale German bread?"
The gold connectors make all the difference!
6176 posts • joined 31 May 2010
"Be reasonable with your analogies, can you honestly tell the difference between fresh German bread and stale German bread?"
The gold connectors make all the difference!
Oh, and side note, having an ego and sense of self importance such that you feel the need to put the title "Dr" in your forum name really - really - destroys your credibility as regards lecturing others about "vanity". Just for the record. Because you don't seem to know that.
"No doubt, but there are chowderheads of all religions on the internet. Your vanity - as the most righteous and caring person in the room - blinds you to some of your own defects."
I honestly don't see where you get "most righteous and caring person in the room" from someone who fairly publicly takes pleasure in your anger and intellectual disquiet. I am, however, interested that my having a moral code which places the needs of the many above the needs of the powerful few so deeply upsets you.
Somehow, you see that as vanity. I'm not saying I'm not a vain person - I think we all are, to some extent - but there is something really broken inside of you if "caring for others" makes you "vain". Really, really broken.
"I have replied to your other comment and do not need to repeat it."
No, actually, you didn't. You made a claim that the FCC doesn't have the legal authority to place data services under title II, but backed it up with fuck all. You're wrong. They do have that authority. The Supreme Court, when bounding the previous Net Neutrality attempt said as much. The sort version was "you don't have the legal authority to create a Net Neutrality compromise. If you want to impose this you need to classify under Title II". Which is exactly what they did. They also have the legal authority to forbear parts of Title II, which they did.
The FCC did not reach for powers it didn't have here. It didn't invent new powers. It used the tools it had (finally!) The fact that you don't like what they did, or that you believe they should have that authority doesn't matter. You are caught in the is/ought problem and can't shake yourself loose.
"At issue is legislative intent and the legal authority of the agency."
No. There is no issue with the legal authority of the agency. It is perfectly within its rights to do what it did. In fact, placing data services under Title II is one of the only powers it actually has.
"Just as I predicted, when challenged, you resort to self-righteous moralising."
You mean the part, several comments ago where I explained in plain English that you're wrong? No, actually, I'm pretty sure that I discussed things like Title II authority, the limits of authority, and why the federal government does in fact have the right to regulate here.
That I threw in some shots at you being an idiot and got your feelers all twisted up doesn't really distract form that. It just makes it a hell of a lot more interesting. Especially since you keep coming back to bellow your righteous indignation.
Oh, woe! Your ego! How low a blow, how callous this show! If only, (if only!) these heathens would listen to you, they'd know!
Maybe when you're all growed up you can learn about playing nice with others. After that we can work on your Randian belief that selfishness is virtue. Before you die we might almost make you human!
Until then, I'm just going to mock you. Because, in addition to being outright wrong in your analysis, you're not a very good or nice person. And so I will make my day better at your expense and feel no guilt about that whatsoever.
That makes me far from "the most caring person in the room", but I am really learning to live with - and like - the practice of selective benevolence. That whole part of being a tolerant person where you are supposed to tolerate the intolerant? Not a fan. So Praise Jibbers, let's have a beer!
"My students would receive a Fail mark for attempting such an argument."
Your students have a shit teacher. You have used Argumentum Ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well (special case of Argumentum Ad Hominem), Appeal to Authority and many, many other logical fallacies in your blustering vitriolic idiocy in this thread. It's clear you don't understand what you're talking about, and if you actually presume to attempt to teach anything related to politics or history to others then you should be locked away as a danger to all mankind.
Also: like it or not, moral issues absolutely are at the core of politics and law. From the formation of nations themselves to the rationale used by Supreme Court justices to - without question - the creation of laws by various elected officials. That you get bent feelers when I call you out on the fact that you are morally bankrupt just makes me gleefully happy. The angrier you get, the happier I am.
You have come in and made a bunch of claims and backed them up with absolutely nothing. Not morality, not law...nothing. Just your own religious interpretation about how the Constitution of your nation "should" be read...which your own top legal beaks disagree with.
You have a partisan chip on your shoulder and clear problem with anything that smacks of the greater good. So please, continue in your blithering. I hope that whenever someone Googles your name they find this thread, your inane witterings and the incontrovertible proof of not only your delusions of self importance but your amorality and hatred for your fellow man.
The law isn't on your side. Morality isn't on your side. Nothing is on your side, excepting your own ego. Best feed it then. Its all you have.
(And that, by the by, is how Argumentum Ad Hominem is properly done.)
"Congress makes the laws, and if it wanted an agency to regulate data services, it would have written those powers into the law."
Well, you quote a completely partisan new magazine to support your completely partisan take on the issue which just happens to actually be wrong. The Telecommunications Act was put into place in order to prevent Title II from having to be used to regulate data, amongst many other things...but it did not remove from the FCC the ability to place data services under Title II, should that be required.
In fact, Congress has no means to place data services under Title II as the law only grants that power to the FCC. They could, in theory, draft another set of laws that would again make the need for Title II irrelevant, but unless they tear up a whole bunch of laws and rewrite them they can't remove from the FCC the ability to place data services under Title II. And the Telecommunications Act absolutely did not remove that legal authority from the FCC.
Furthermore, the US Congress has become nothing more than a grandstanding show of doing absolutely fucking nothing of value, and as much of negative value as possible for the better part of 5 years. With very few exceptions, Congress does fuck all, because obstructionist politics resonate with...well, with people like you.
"The Constitution is there to protect the people from people like you, basically."
Actually, no. The Constitution was to form the basis of a system of government which would allow the people to govern themselves. This was in opposition to governance by an aristocracy and a monarch. It offered multiple protections against various forms of government overreach, but does not prevent the federal government of the United States from regulating inter-state commerce.
The internet is in every way possible interstate commerce. It is international commerce in it's truest form. It is also a vehicle for freedom of expression, education, health and life sciences and a whole raft of other aspects of our lives that absolutely fall under the purview of the federal government.
What's more, the basic laws and regulations for regulating the Internet go back to before it's creation. because it is an evolution of existing technologies and real world concerns, rather than a completely new thing.
But you know, there are countries out there that do, in fact, "protect" their citizens from "people like me". You know, people who understand the law, the spirit and intent of the law, the larger economic and political issues as they affect municipal, state, federal and international spheres and who believes that doing what's right by the majority must be the ultimate goal of any system of governance.
I realize you're trying very hard to turn the United States into one of those countries. I hope for the sake of US citizens you fail. The types of folks who build nations only to benefit the indulgent few usually end up building some pretty shitty nations. Maybe you could just do your fellow citizens a favour and move to one of them, eh?
"Every net neutrality discussion at El Reg turns into an excuse for Trevor Potts to explain how he is a good person, on the side of the people, and everyone who disagrees with him is evil."
Lots of people - especially on these forums - beleive that sticking up for "the people" instead of one's self (or only for the rich/elite/the "right" people) is "evil". Now, do I, personally, believe that putting the needs of the many before your own is "good" and that being selfish is "evil"? Yes, yes I do. But I also recognize that there's a minority of folk out there who worship their own personally misinterpretation of Ayn Rand's works and believe selfishness is "good" and selflessness is "evil".
When Net Neutrality - or really, any economic discussion of any kind comes up - the supply side economics chowderheads will appear out of a portal in order to preach their religion. So yes, I absolutely do, and will and take great pleasure in posting stuff that I know full well will annoy them.
I do so because I'm not pure and "good" and wonderful at heart. I do it because just as the twisted Randians feel an uncontrollable compulsion to tell the world that selfishness is the One True Belief, I get a sort of maleficent glee from raising their blood pressure and contributing that little bit to ruining their day.
Also, just for the record, Potts is different from Pott's. Potts would indicate multiple individuals with the past name "Pott". It is the plural form of tacking the "s" on the end of things. Pott's would be possessive and indicate ownership. In this case, a possessive ("Pott's law") would be the proper bit of grammar to demonstrate your point.
In any case, I'm glad that I've made your day a little worse. Cheers!
By saying that I believe that governments are "saints" you have proven only yourself to be the moron, sir. My track record of railing against governments is pretty well established.
I am sorry if sticking up for "the people" instead of "those who already have nearly unchallengeable power over tens or even hundreds of millions of individuals" bothers you. Actually, I'm not sorry. If that bothers you, you're probably a horrible, horrible person, and I'm actually pretty glad that I irritate you.
How come it's "government overreach" when it's regulation that prevents telcos from abusing their monopolies to harm consumers but it's "necessary" when it's regulation that prevents anyone (especially municipalities, community groups or or forth) from competing with said monopolies?
A government should work to prevent the concentration of power and to set up barriers to abuse of power in case it does end up concentrated. This benefits the many.
If the government should become about allowing and then protecting concentrations of power, this benefits the few. At which point, the question really becomes why the many should allow it to continue.
"The American gov't are the bad guys, not the Americans,"
I don't see the American people banding together to do anything about their government. Or the excesses of their corporations. I see aught but apathy. For a significant chunk of your nation, I see strong support for the power-mad types causing the trouble.
Maybe some Americans are good guys, but not remotely enough enough to make a difference...or to be worth viewing the populace as a whole in a positive light.
"Didn't you learn anything about the world history during the 20th Century when you were in school?"
Sure I did: Americans are not the good guys. It's a pretty important lesson that you seem utterly incapable of learning.
"The US, while they may want to find something to blackmail you with, won't be destroying your business by stealing your technology."
Prove it. According to my sources, the United States absolutely and without question does steal technologies and information from foreign companies for the benefit of their domestic corporations, a process known as industrial espionage. They do this. They do it a lot. And this is why anyone who uses American cloud computing is a goddamned idiot.
Also, it does not matter whether or not you are doing things that are illegal, the US will twist and warp anything and everything they find to suit their needs. You don't have to be doing things illegal.
A) The US believes its laws apply everywhere.
B) In the US, everyone is guilty of something; the laws are designed that way. Nobody can know what all the laws are and everyone breaks a least one law per day.
C) The US doesn't believe non-US citizens have any rights whatsoever. So you don't have the same rights to due process as Americans, and you don't have rights to privacy, not having your technology stolen or what-have-you. The only rights you'll ever get are the minimum rights required for them to make a show of whatever it is they want to make a show of.
You are never going to get a fair hearing in the US. You are never going to get a fair trail. You are going to have your shit stolen and you will be presumed guilty unless proven innocent, especially if you're a "dirty foreigner".
The United States of America are not the good guys. Not even fucking close. They are a necessary evil that must be tolerated because they happen to be the nexus of western commerce, but only a fool would ever - ever - trust them.
I'm not saying China's any better. They're not, really...but most of us don't have any reason to have anything to do with China. So they can sit there and cultivate their own private insanity all they want, it doesn't affect anyone on our side of the world except those who have heaps and heaps of money already and are trying very hard to make even more.
The US being dipshits affects every single citizen of a western nation and every single SMB. So, from a risk management standpoint, it is the Americans that need managing, as they are the most pressing risk.
"But they potentially get your finances, the identifies of your customers and potential customers, your plans for your next kit...."
Go right ahead. What does seeing my finances get the Chinese? They don't regulate me. Canada does, and by imperialist extension (and the fact that they are irrational and fucking crazy about who they let into their country for business purposes) the US does as well. It's them I have to be worried about looking at my finances.
As for my client list, well...hey, regardless of the industry I'm playing in, there are only so many players. Both as vendors and as customers. It won't be hard to guess my customer list or go after them/potential future customers.
Again: if China wants my customer list and/or my finances I don't care. I only care when someone can - and will - use it against me. The Americans can, and they absolutely will.
I am way - way - less concerned about some Chinese company knocking on the door of my customers saying "would you like a knockoff product/service" than I am some yank busybody at the borders denying me entry because one of my customers' customers' customers talked to the second cousin of the mother of a terrorist's nephew using encrypted e-mail. (Gasp!)
I also think that I am going to provide better quality of service and support to my customers than the Chinese, and on that basis alone they're likely to pick me. I'm less sure about competing against the sort of American company that's big enough to benefit from US state economic espionage. They could put me out of business with a thought.
So, again: China? Not a really big concern. The US: big concern.
"But what about the Chinese seeing what your company is doing then coming in and under cutting you (or under mining you...)?"
They don't need to see my data to do that. They can do that just buy buying the product or service and reverse engineering. They have functionally unlimited manpower. Highly trained, highly capable manpower. if the Chinese want to undercut me, there's not a damned thing I can do to stop them.
The US, on the other hand, they have to play in the same economic ball park. If the US undertakes economic espionage that is a more direct threat, and one where mitigation would have some very real world benefits.
You can't compete against the Chinese. Don't bother trying. But protecting yourself from the Americans means you still have a chance at pushing a product. Until it's successful. Then the Chinese will clone it.
Also: for many of us the Chinese sniffing our data doesn't matter. We don't do business there and never will. But we do have to do business with the US, and they both have zero issue with using whatever questionable "evidence" they find to hassle you at the border and they conduct economic espionage.
China isn't a threat to everyone. Only to the biggest players. The US is a threat to way more companies in the western world than China will ever be.
AVG Antivirus for Android does a lovely job of this.
No, the issue isn't just "peering between networks and who owns the last mile". Both of which are pretty fucking significant issues, by the way.
It's what you are allowed to do with your monopoly (or half of a duopoly).
Discriminate against VoIP because you own a fixed line or mobile carrier? No!
Discriminate against video because you own a cable or broadcast setup? No!
Offer services where what you offer is immune to data caps but competitors are not? No!
And the list goes on.
I don't think any but the fanatical few have an issue with QoS for classes of content, but only if that QoS is handled fairly and neutrally. I.E. if you want to prioritize VoIP traffic (a good idea), then you prioritize all VoIP traffic, regardless of service provider. Even if they are a competitor to the last mile provider, or the backhaul provider, or any other provider anywhere.
So on and so forth.
There's lots of examples of extant providers acting against net neutrality to the detriment of consumers and the developing ecosystem of the internet as a whole. Yet you're trying to claim "it's all good, no problem, there's no need to regulate anything, status should be quo". Well to hell with you! You're not only wrong, you're clearly willing to put your religious (and ridiculous!) economic beliefs ahead of the good of the many.
The fact that some of us have faster data access than 20 some odd years ago is not particularly relevant. Yes, when competition existed service capability increased. In the intervening 20 years the landscape has changed. That one big jump - from dial up to DSL - is long behind us. Incremental (and grudgingly installed) upgrades have been the bare minimum required to stave off regulation and little more for some time.
Worse, the existing providers are constantly trying to find ways to not only prevent any further investment in infrastructure, but to lock everyone into their services and/or block services of competing providers. That's not okay. Not even a little bit.
Abuses are happening. Providers are even going to court to ensure they can continue doing so. And the status quo offers scope for much worse abuses...which the various providers will take advantage of, as surely as night follows day.
So yes, they need to be regulated. Because they have proven over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that they cannot be trusted. And if that hurts your religious economic beliefs, too frakking bad.
1) Mobile data costs
2) Mobile data caps
3) Mobile data roaming costs (holy fucking pants!)
4) Inability to get decent uplink speeds for residential/SMB, especially with new the growing demands of new services (like cloud backups, etc.)
5) Lack of competition, especially for residential/SMB
6) Fixed line caps too low/can't get them raise/overage is punitive
7) Fixed line caps don't grow over time to accommodate growth in usage
8) Regulations preventing municipal broadband
9) Regulations preventing community broadband
10) Regulations preventing new entrants from laying cable
11) ISPs/Cable/Mobile providers blocking (or de-prioritizing) traffic to/from companies offering competing services (VoIP, VoD, etc) instead of traffic shaping the whole class (their traffic included).
12) ISPs/Cable/Mobile providers giving cap exemptions for services provided by them, but not for competing services in teh same category
Do you really need me to go on?
The whole goddamned model is broken. Net neutrality is needed because of decades of regulations - and lack of regulations - sprinkled about that aim to create monopolies, allow unchecked abuse of those monopolies and then prevent anyone from ever challenging those monopolies.
And yes, the problem absolutely can be too much regulation and too little at the same time. The right regulations restrict companies from discriminating thus prevent abuse of power. The wrong regulations prevent companies from competing, then encourage power to concentrate.
The right mix of regulations and hands-off treatments strongly discourage power from ever concentrating in one place, and provide checks to prevent abuse of power if it ever does manage to do so.
"Hasn't anyone ever read Atlas Shrugged?"
Sure I have. I've read the holy texts of many other religions too. They're all bullshit, but few are currently so globally dangerous as the religion that sprung up around that bit of madness.
"You can't own or control your own stuff. Which means there is no real functioning market for stuff. The terms of trade are set by others.
The tech oligarchs take the place of the market, set the terms, control the price, etc.
This has been their greatest achievement: persuading people to act against their own economic interests."
Funny how you rail and froth against tech companies for setting the terms of trade and creating a culture where you can't own things, but when it's the established intellectual property monopolies doing it, well holy fuck, that's just the best thing ever.
And, of course, the existing telco monopolies should be allowed to set the terms of trade by restricting access. That's good and fine. But not those tech companies. Damn them. Damn them to hell.
If you call Datacore hyperconverged we have a different definition of hyperconvergence. Datacore is a storage gateway. You can try to moosh it together into something sort of hyperconverged, but the end result is a frankenwhatsit lacking a lot of the important benefits of hyperconvergence and not really delivering any of the benefits of a storage gateway.
I like Datacore, but this just seems weird to me.
"Your product is clearly just a rebranding with nothing new whatsoever because your color scheme is crap."
Yep. Buying that logic completely.
But does CSMA/CD really matter if it's switched?
I don't see any advertisements on the comments section, so why would page hits matter here?
As for "different vulnerabilities", STUXNET is written by the NSA. You seem to believe we should trust the nice Microsoft PR person and take them at their word that this is an entirely different vulnerability and that the previous one was patched. Yessiree. No collusion by Microsoft with the NSA to push out a feel-good patch that ultimately did nothing. Nope.
You're a shill. The question is, for which party? Clearly you have no problems with selling us to the spooks...but that still could make you a shill to either.
Both Microsoft and the NSA are never, ever to be trusted.
Are you shilling for Microsoft here, or the NSA? Or is there a difference anymore?
You're wrong. The fact that the overwhelming amount of money from the "recovery" went to the richest few (instead of the working class) means that supply side economics will kick in any day now (if we'd just lower taxes on the rich!). The rich will reinvest in the economy. You'll get funding to grow your business and create jobs.
"But, you know, props to your hipsterness and all that, for being able to cut the cord."
Uh...I'm the least hipster human being you'll ever meet and I cut the cord 13 years ago. Methinks either your understanding of how easy life without a cable/satellite sub can be or your definition of "hipster" is completely whacked.
Have one, don't have one...it's not like an ARM license is expensive!
has been officially confirmed by the SimpliVity CEO to be 1500 units. Sorry it took so long.
"Probably factually correct, but why? Earth has four times the surface area but its dynamo has lasted 9 times as long."
When Earth was young, a planet roughly the size of Mars crashed into it. Much of the lighter elements splashed off into orbit and became the moon. All the heavier elements - like Uranium, Thorium and other radioactives - sunk to Earth's core. Earth has not the radioactive power of one planet, but two. combined with it's higher size, the remnant heat from that catastrophic impact and the fact that it was spun up both by Theia and the Late Heavy Bombardment, and, well....
"Which isn't hard to get these days.
Most enterprises would also have dual redundant internet connections, so at least half your bandwidth is probably unused..."
Sure it is. My 5 man company can't seem to afford it. But we generate 150TB of unique data a month? Oh, that's just an externality? Cloud is still cheaper?
Sure it is.
Ignoring externalities again? Good little shill. Ignore the costs of bandwidth. Security. Liability insurance. Legal representation in a foreign jurisdiction. Etc. etc...
Cloud is cheaper my fat, jiggling ASCII. Next you'll try to convince me supply side economics works in the real world. Why, Alabama is doing just Jim frakking Dandy on that plan, ain't it?
Banks (at least in theory) have regulation. For the "simple things" like your personal savings and chequing accounts there are piles and piles of regulations they have to follow. There are long standing international regulations about bank security, privacy, etc. (Not that they are generally good for the individuals, but...)
The public cloud - espeically the American public cloud - is the Wild West. there are no rules, and no certainties, save American Expectionalism driving ever more disheartening examples of extraterritorial jurisdictional overreach.
"Works just fine here for 50TB of data. Use a local StorSimple array to backup to and it automatically dedupes, compresses, encrypts and uploads to the cloud."
Well of course you do. Anyone shilling that hard for Microsoft is going to get all the good free. And since you clearly give no fucks whatsoever about security or data sovereignty issues, what's good for your customers is just pissed away because it's convenient to you.
"Maybe, how expensive is the reputation all risk that associates failure?"
Depends on who you ask. According to Sony: completely negligible.
"And even if you did back up 50TB of changed uncompressible data a week, that's still possible over a 1 Gbit link."
Can you restore before you go out of business? And don't say "just turn it on using Azure". Non-Americans tend to have rules about where they store data - especially live, unencrypted data. There are a lot of folks who can't "just light things up on Azure". Which means getting the data back. Ho hum. Bankrupt from waiting yet?
Oh..."just pay more"? But...but...the cloud was supposed to be cheaper! Oh, that's only if you ignore all the "externalities" like connectivity - especially redundant connectivity - security, liability insurance, potential need to litigate in foreign jurisdictions, etc?
"So when say your premises catch fire, both your data and your backups get nuked?"
Then it's lovely that we have colocation facilities and regional cloud providers which provide cloud services and data storage by companies with a complete legal and jurisdictional chain of custody that means every aspect of the company I use for remote storage is 100% under the same legal jurisdiction as my own company.
Holy pants, Batman. It's like I can get all the benefit of cloud whatsit without Americans conducting economic espionage on all my clients' data and I can remove the legal uncertainty of having anything to do with a company that is at any point foreign being involved in my data sovereignty.
Bonus points: if I need all my data back, the colo can put some drives in a box and courier to me within the same business day. Sure beats trying to suck my entire existence down an ADSL straw!
Wait, why the hell would I ever choose anything else?
1) Microsoft's Ireland Datacenter: oh, wait, that's apparently American now.
2) Microsoft's Canadian...oh wait, they don't have one.
3) The NSA's Utah Datacenter: hey, where's my user panel to get my data out? If you're going to store it, I want access in case of emergency...
"Windows had fewer security holes last year than the Linux Kernel (let alone a distribution), and OS-X so it's likely not the worst choice..."
Windows is the most popular consumer OS created by a company which is beholden to a government obsessed with spying on consumers. There's no possible way it can be trusted. Now, there's an argument to be made that no OS can be trusted...but Windows is the Big Fat Target, and American corporations can never be trusted. Just ask Cisco about how the government has helped them "enhance shareholder value" through their foreign and domestic espionage programs...
"RMS BYOK capability allows you to match the security properties of an on-premise RMS deployment generating your own tenant key on your premises per your IT policies. Transfer your tenant key securely to the cloud-based Thales nShield HSM hosted by Microsoft. "
Wait. WHAT? So your solution to security issues in Microsoft's cloud is to use an encryption service that lives on Microsoft's cloud?!?
A service where my encryption key will have to go over the internet. A service where the thing that encrypts and decrypts data is not something that I have a 100% chain of custody on. A service where there is more than ample opportunity for the bad guys (and yes, the US government are the frucking bad guys, just as much as any hacker) to get hold of the keys and unlock my data?
"As a corporate, you can take steps to make that very difficult on Microsoft's cloud if you want to . You can use Azure RMS and 'bring your own keys', and set them so that they can't be accessed from the USA:"
And this costs what? What's the entry price? Is it available to the mass market? Has the code been inspected so we're sure it's free of backdoors? Is it randomly audited? By whom? Who pays for the audits? Who checks the credentials of the auditors? Where is the chain of trust in the bullshit you're peddling, and how universal in applicability is it to market?
I see sales and handwaving. And your links don't answer the hard questions.
"You keep the latest copies locally too on your Microsoft StorSimple device. You only need a full download if you loose the whole site. At which point you would be failing over to your DR site anyway."
Which costs what? There are way - way - more SMBs out there than enterprises. And how do we know we can trust Microsoft with our encryption keys? Or what's on that Storsimple device? Has it been audited? How do we know there aren't backdoors? Or backdoors in the cloud?
How can we ever trust an American cloud provider? And for that matter, why should most companies consider this as a solution, given the entry level price?, Especially if you want proper security? (Assuming such a thing is allowed to even exist.)
Lots of talk and marketing and sales going on here, AC. Not a hell of a lot of hard, tangible proof that this is applicable, trustworthy and safe to the mass market. Especially the non-American mass market.
"Of course, back in the day we had service bureaus offering utility computing, and they did a nice tidy bit of business before mostly being run off by people who thought every firm could do a good job of managing its own IT. Just like every firm does a great job of generating its own power, running its own transportation infrastructure, providing its own physical security, running its own custodial service..."
I have better uptime than amazon. And I build my shit out of the IT equivalent of used coconuts and duct tape. I have better security than megaliths like Sony, or Anthem, or...
...wait, why, exactly is it a great idea for me to hand my data - and with it, my business, livelihood and the ability to pay myself and my staff - over to an outsourcer?
And even if I did think cloud computing was a great plan - and I do, for certain workloads - why the metric donkey fuck would I have all my bits of digital precious over to Americans, of all people?
I mean, yes, the Brits and the Aussies have far more deplorable privacy policies - and hey, Canada is a member of five eyes and all that - but if I'm going to get my data stolen, why not get it stolen by my own government? At least then it's up to my own courts in my own nation to sort out liability, not some byzantine backroom international horror.
American cloud providers can't be trusted. Ever. Maybe no cloud providers can. But if that's the so, then the case for keeping your data managed by a supply chain of companies that are answerable only to your own legal jurisdiction is made all the stronger by that reality, not weaker.
"With Microsoft's cloud backups you control the encryption keys on site - and it uses AES256 encryption:"
No I can't. I'm an SMB. I don't have $virgins to give Microsoft for special consideration. Even if I did, there's no guarantee that Microsoft or the NSA haven't backdoored some aspect of the solution. Microsoft is an American cloud provider. As such, they flat out cannot be trusted.
"Bureaucrats unsurprisingly see more legislation as the solution to every problem. It usually isn't."
Free market capitalism is almost never the solution to anything either. Regulated markets are. Free market capitalism is a dangerous religion, nothing more. It should be treated like any other cult.
The solution to which, of course, is to drop taxes on the rich, abandon the poor and have everything run by private corporations! Oh, and don't forget to drop taxes on the rich. It's really important. And zero taxes for corporations!
That's the only way to solve debt problems. An upside-down piece of candy corn in a wig made of used medical gauze told me so.
Badly thought out neutrality regulation is neutrality regulation that favours companies at the expense of the population. Amending legislation a year or two down the road with something that allows QoS for emergency services would be a simple sell and easily done.
Regaining civil liberties (like equality, privacy and so forth), once lost, is nearly impossible.
I have a nice British lady's voice say "this call is being recorded" for every phone call I'm part of. Then it actually records the call. Very. Angry. Scammers.
If you're in Australia all you get is one viewpoint but two parties espousing it!