×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Feds: We Need Priority Access To Cloud Resources

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the get-to-the-back-of-the-line dept.

Cloud 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

183 comments

How about no? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637479)

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? (4, Insightful)

INT_QRK (1043164) | about 2 years ago | (#40637629)

The U.S. federal government mindset is shifting inexorably from its intended role of democratic representatives to that of rulers. So sad to see.

Re:How about no? (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40637741)

Not only rulers, but corrupt, entitled rulers demanding huge amounts of money for political favors.

Re:How about no? (5, Insightful)

hoppo (254995) | about 2 years ago | (#40638017)

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? (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40638203)

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? (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40638305)

Except for the fact that corporations:

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:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638735)

A tiger in a cage is still a tiger.

Re:How about no? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638805)

What an inane post.

Re:How about no? (2, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40638811)

So explain to me the harm that a corporation has in a free market.

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, otherwise it goes bankrupt. If you don't want to support a corporation, you don't have to. You can live your entire life without buying a Sony product, without buying anything from Wal-Mart, etc. If you live in the US though, you can't not fund the various wars and drone strikes without going to jail.

Corporations therefore must produce products that the public likes at a low enough cost to remain profitable.

Re:How about no? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638915)

> Are you going to pay for services/products that do not improve your quality of life? No.

You are wrong. Most people will in fact do this. There is an economic science experiment that involves an auction of a $20 bill which will routinely and consistently sell for more than $25.

People make very poor economic decisions; the idea of a self regulating free market based on actors always doing what is in their best interest fails because the actors do not act in that way.

Re:How about no? (4, Insightful)

hoppo (254995) | about 2 years ago | (#40638379)

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:How about no? (5, Insightful)

hoppo (254995) | about 2 years ago | (#40637995)

That's where "federal" has become quite a misnomer. This is becoming more and more a national government.

Re:How about no? (5, Insightful)

chrb (1083577) | about 2 years ago | (#40637631)

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...

Re:How about no? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637699)

Why don't you just kiss big daddy's ass while your at it. This is typical of slash dot, they love the government and bending over for the man. Just another reason to avoid using the cloud.

Re:How about no? (2)

Coeurderoy (717228) | about 2 years ago | (#40637757)

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" you'd better think twice,and see how much it really cost when you start asking hard question, like: if suddently we need 10x the processing capacity because of a large scale disaster, how will you prioritize ?

And BTW: if any private organization runs a critical service (security, fire protection, health care, etc...) and is not asking for similar level of services for what ever they put in the cloud, then they are either incompetent or thieving scums who are privatizing public services for private gains and giving sloppy services.
A competent and honest private organization with this kind of public mandate would make sure that it complies with what the public expect (and with what should be written in its mandate)

Re:How about no? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637709)

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?

Any reason they would want priority access to the public cloud would be to access public information. If they are moving highly sensitive material over the public cloud, they're in much more trouble and shouldn't be worrying about priority access before worrying about the public accessing their data.

Re:How about no? (2)

eric_herm (1231134) | about 2 years ago | (#40637753)

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 infrastructure there because that's hype, here is what we ask and need". That's IMHO easier to do with a private offer ( especially since lots of things are coming in free software on that part ), but they cannot just say "we will not go there", without giving justification. ( especially since that's the same justification than the requirement for a internal private cloud/IaaS infrastructure )

Re:How about no? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#40638809)

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.

Cheaper is wrong in emergency planning. it is not the primary consideration.

Re:How about no? (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 2 years ago | (#40637761)

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.

Yes, but why? [Re:How about no?] (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 2 years ago | (#40637959)

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 government already has economy of scale, and should have good ideas for how much computing power they need. What advantage does using the cloud, and giving others physical possession of the computational equipment, have for them?

Re:How about no? (2)

rickb928 (945187) | about 2 years ago | (#40638739)

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 the vendor to grant them a back door. No, my home server uses no Microsof or Cisco products at all.

We are not far from having the fight over real privacy and government intrusion. And this Administration, despite its initial promises to be transparent, open, and ethical, has continued the progress of other Administrations into our private information, in all forms.

This is more serious than most of us think. Corporations marshalling our data can lead us into choices we would not otherwise make, deny us opportunities we would otherwise have, and cost us more than we should otherwise have to pay. Government is trying to assert itself into our lives in extrordinary ways, and will use this data to deal with us to our detriment. Healthcare will become a more constrained resource with a single-government-payer system, and the more data they have on us, the better they can make decisions to manage that resource. And that will NOT improve our health. It will only reduce costs.

Where I come from, reducing the cost of something is easily achieved by reducing the quantity or quality of it.

Denying the government private data it shoudl not have is a two-edged sword. First, deny them the need - keep them out of your life as much as possible and practical. Second, challenge their collection of the data at every turn.

The public cloud is very attractive to those who want to see everything. It makes it easier. The debate about emergency services and whether they should be provisioned as dedicated resources is another issue entirely.

Re:How about no? (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40638047)

This view bleeds over from how the government uses the radio spectrum. On the channels they use, they have priority access and all other must wait for them because it's (theoretically) public safety. But the same doesn't hold true for any and all data storage. Cloud data storage is a convenience, not for critical data. They need to be reeducated if they think they can use the cloud for mission critical data they need immediate access to.

Re:How about no? (1)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | about 2 years ago | (#40638333)

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:How about no? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638373)

All this report says is that IF they are going to embrace the cloud then they will NEED that priority. All it means is they will probably continue to not depend on the cloud, and rather build stuff out that they know they have priority too because it is there. No need to get angry at the Feds.

They have cash? (2)

tqft (619476) | about 2 years ago | (#40637481)

They can pay for first priority

Re:They have cash? (5, Insightful)

JanneM (7445) | about 2 years ago | (#40637567)

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:They have cash? (2)

tqft (619476) | about 2 years ago | (#40637673)

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:They have cash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637695)

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.

Re:They have cash? (1)

JanneM (7445) | about 2 years ago | (#40637817)

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:They have cash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637729)

But we are the government .. (when it comes to paying) .. the government paying more is us paying more .. or maybe too many people don't pay for government (with low to non existent tax rates for low income) .. maybe that's the problem ...

Re:They have cash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638367)

if they are going to the cloud first, and not in a "burst" season (think tax time for the IRS). They most certainly are wasting money by not owning and managing their own infrastructure. Hint, these cloud providers are interested in making HANDSOME profits.

Re:They have cash? (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 2 years ago | (#40637697)

no, they been spending themselves in to a deficit for decades, thats why the debt is 15+ trillion dollars and growing

Re:They have cash? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637723)

They can pay for first priority

Of course they have cash. And if they don't, they can print some or levy a tax for some. Cash doesn't make an even playing field between government and the people, but Constitutional Law does.

Re:They have cash? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40638319)

Sure, and they should, but every dollar the government they either have it via force (taxes) or fraud (money printing). The government should be trying to reduce itself rather than growing.

Re:They have cash? (1)

Americano (920576) | about 2 years ago | (#40638885)

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!

Feds: We need priority access to cloud resources (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637499)

The need it for spreading their lies.

don't see why not. (4, Interesting)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#40637513)

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:don't see why not. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637541)

In other words, you want them to spend my tax dollars so that you could freeload on the government run service? No thank you. You want it -- you pay for it.

Re:don't see why not. (1)

fluffythedestroyer (2586259) | about 2 years ago | (#40637595)

Who would use it ? Me...hell no since I know the gov is taking care of it. No matter what I will do they will know. Encrypted data or not they still have that data and in time they will decrypt it since they got access to my data 100% of the time. With time, ressource and money they will be able to access it. At the same time what's stopping other corps to create their cloud beside the gov's cloud anyways. I rather stay with private corp cloud (non gov created) so that way I can trace the request to get info on my cloud data.

Re:don't see why not. (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about 2 years ago | (#40637739)

Or they could just run their own datacenter, with their own servers to perform necessary IT function. Like they already do today.

Re:don't see why not. (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#40638381)

...And how do you think corporations make money (in a free market)? It is by providing a good service that people want to use. If they don't do that, they go out of business. I don't know about you but I don't pay for things that don't improve my standard of living.

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 better cloud at a much cheaper price than the government ever could dream of.

Information superhighway redux? (1)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | about 2 years ago | (#40638475)

Okay, the term has fallen into disrepute. But isn't the cloud just an extension or enhancement of the concept (pipe + storage space + online applications)? So why not a cloud service analogous to a country's road network?

Re:don't see why not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638831)

The government is just upset that the ISPs are demanding 'cuddle time' afterward.

Why do they even need the cloud? (5, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | about 2 years ago | (#40637553)

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? (3, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#40637597)

This is just another case of some government guy who doesn't really understanding tech and that cloud is just a marketting word thinking that it is some great new technology.

Re:Why do they even need the cloud? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637679)

Actually, from some of the things I have read, this is a case of some goverment guy who does understand tech but who comes from a particular background and pushes his preferred solution for everything. You know, when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.

The guy who really got this rolling was Vivek Kundra.

Re:Why do they even need the cloud? (1)

Magtheridon (915433) | about 2 years ago | (#40637609)

At least a small part of the reason is due to the fact government agencies are just now finally growing their web presence at a rapid pace as part of the open government initiatives. Figuring out at what scale they are going to be growing would be a huge pain over telling Amazon / Terremark (where large portions of current cloud infrastructure reside) "hey we need more processor/ram/storage". There are large amounts of thought, planning, and contract work that would have to be put into building a proper infrastructure. When I last dealt with real servers, they were running a bunch of solaris boxes that were barely usable, but technically had the specs they needed, so they weren't about to upgrade them or build new boxes.

Re:Why do they even need the cloud? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#40637611)

Bureaucrats and politicians, accountants love made up number that show phantom savings..... I am sure their actual security planners and engineers are shitting bricks at the very idea of having critical government services hosted on shared machines of private companies during an emergency.

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 themselves more vulnerable by depending on private companies.

If things are truely critical and need to be online when things go to pot, they should be on a government (military) hardened cluster of some type. Not some server farm where load balancers decide if you are more important then someone watching old episodes of I love Lucy. The two shouldn't even be in the same equation.

Re:Why do they even need the cloud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637621)

Consider floor plans, hazard listings utility plans etc. these are often needed by first responders in any of a number of situations. As the government tries to reduce cost by going to the cloud for many data systems access to the cloud becomes a priority. We too often pigeon hole the government into a label of black ops and clandestine activities, which is more often than not, not the case.

Re:Why do they even need the cloud? (2)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#40637643)

Exactly. Any moron who puts critical government functions in "the cloud" ( a stupid marketing term for someone else's servers) should be fired.

Re:Why do they even need the cloud? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637677)

So... they may not need the cloud. They've established conditions, "if we were to use the cloud, we must have this." If "this" is not available, or cost prohibitive, then the cloud is not a good match for the government's needs.

This like me saying, "For me to buy a house, it has to be in good repair, within a half hour drive of my work and cost less than $400,000". Since no such house exists, I will not be buying one.

Re:Why do they even need the cloud? (2)

gtall (79522) | about 2 years ago | (#40637807)

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:Why do they even need the cloud? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637823)

So they can improve their gameplay experience of that ol'popular game, I spy with my little eye...

Personally... (3, Insightful)

JasoninKS (1783390) | about 2 years ago | (#40637557)

Personally, I'd want to see their definition of "emergency" first. Other than that, I'd be fine with them getting priority access in an emergency situation. If an emergency hits, the NS/EP teams need that infrastructure to take care of the situation more than (for example) Amazon needing to get packages out the door.

Re:Personally... (1)

haystor (102186) | about 2 years ago | (#40637619)

It goes beyond their low threshold of what is an "emergency". It is also a matter of the government thinking they "need" to be first in line. There are limitless applications of the internet which may deserve higher priority. From reporting of the situation to keep the populace informed, routing food and water to those in need to just getting on with things if you're on the same cloud and not in the emergency area.

The government has no business demanding they can commandeer our paid for services at their discretion.

Re:Personally... (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#40638359)

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.

Re:Personally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638775)

Excellent! So in the event of a fire, you won't mind cooking a little longer since the government have no right to the public roads, which you paid for. They also have no right to the public airwaves to transmit radio communications, since they were also paid for by taxpayers or corporations.

Have fun living in that world.

Re:Personally... (2)

Magtheridon (915433) | about 2 years ago | (#40637625)

Really depends on the agency to and the emergency at hand. For example, you may want the CDC to have priority access to resources during the zombie apocalypse, so that you can get recommendations on whether you have to kill the guy that got bitten, or if its only a problem if he dies of other causes.

Concierge service (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637561)

Need priority access? Install your own cloud using Echelon and successor assets. Leave the private sector alone. We have different standards than you and trying to shoehorn your requirements for mandatory access (which itself is a circular fiction) into the commercial world where access is purchased and thus entitled based on a little thing called the constitution,

I think any use by the Feds at any time where any force of law is used (takeover, warrant, warrantless) should be PAID FOR at 20x the normal rate in exchange for the priority they insist on. Firct class service costs more, same day platinum service is a large premium. Pay for it. You just print the money anyway.

JJ

Re:Concierge service (1)

sabs (255763) | about 2 years ago | (#40637849)

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:Concierge service (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638103)

Property rights are assured by the constitution. The citizen is the sovereign not the government. Who's confused now?

BTW never, ever, RTFA. :)

Re:Concierge service (1)

sabs (255763) | about 2 years ago | (#40638487)

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 to rip them off if you so much as cough in a way that displeases the Cloud Service Provider.

Here's an idea... (5, Insightful)

SQL Error (16383) | about 2 years ago | (#40637579)

Don't use the cloud for national security and emergency response functions.

Problem solved.

Re:Here's an idea... (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40637777)

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.

Excuse me? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637585)

"Federal agencies must be assured priority and uninterrupted access to public cloud resources"

Under what authority?

Anyone remember the Constitution anymore?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Bend over proles and do what your betters tell you. We will tell you when to see a doctor and who. We will tell you what to think.

WELCOME TO THE LAND OF THE SOVIETS WHERE LABOR IS FREE

What gets me is most of you drone idiots probably voted for Obama.

Feh.

cloud in the government (5, Insightful)

sageres (561626) | about 2 years ago | (#40637591)

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:cloud in the government (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40637795)

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:cloud in the government (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 2 years ago | (#40638109)

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:

  1. Lobbying. Just like the 'one card' fiasco (what, we issue cards for 5 years even if the person's got 2 years left on their contract? Because it's such a pain & expense to issue a card? Oh, and it can get them into other installations that they have no business going to?), it's all a matter of lobbyists selling 'solutions' to minor problems that end up having major repercussions that the high up decision makers don't seem to care about.
  2. There's been a requirement for the past few years for agencies to reduce the number of 'data centers'. Unfortunately, they keep changing the definition of 'data center' until I think at this point a telco closet qualifies. (and unfortunately, I'm not exaggerating [datacenterknowledge.com] ). So, the easiest reduction -- get rid of all of your servers, implications be damned.

And of course, we're getting all sorts of clouds now -- public cloud, public companies with specialized government clouds, agency clouds, departmental clouds and clusters, etc. And for the departmental one they're trying to get us to move over to, they can't tell us what the cost model is going to be. (other than we know it'll be cost / year, while our budget is built around infrequent hardware replacement costs + lower reoccurring sysadmin time)

Security (2)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about 2 years ago | (#40637633)

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 (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40637803)

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. (2)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 2 years ago | (#40637635)

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 (5, Informative)

laird (2705) | about 2 years ago | (#40637647)

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:The article is 100% reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637993)

Please RTFA before flaming.

If it weren't for your 4-digit UID I'd say "You must be new here"...

Re:The article is 100% reasonable (1)

asylumx (881307) | about 2 years ago | (#40638127)

Agreed wholeheartedly. The headline reads more like "Feds want to be able to easily seize things that are stored on the cloud" than "Feds won't use cloud unless they can have priority access to their data"

Internet Gov't Created (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637651)

The Internet was originally developed by the gov't to create a redundant method of comm in the event of a nuclear strike.

Seems to me whether you like it or not that they have dibs.

GovernmentCloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637661)

Make your own cloud. The government is big enough that there should be an IT "office" similar to the FBI/CIA/NSA/whatever, that all they do is host a government "cloud", which the other agencies can buy from. Make them responsible for supplying everything from the CPU time to the toner for the printers.

AWS GOV cloud (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40638201)

AWS has a specific cloud area just for the government. Commercial users are not in there at all. Isn't that good enough?

Ambulances on public roads (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637663)

I have not decided how wise this metaphor is. Perhaps it would be better to use the arrangement that some companies is on a list that comes into effect in emergency situations as an example. Well, you decide. But, anyway. This is not the worst idea I read about. But, the question remains, what about other governments. Is the US preparedness more important then any other governments needs? Perhaps there needs to be UN treaties governing Internet priority traffic. This might be a long debate. Perhaps we need to rethink the whole Internet. I'm thinking about some algorithm that sorts out priorities. What if we applied the same algorithm on investments? Isac Asmiov has some rules that could be used for this. It's called the rules of robotic. I'm way ahead of most of you now. I'm sorry about that. But, some of you might guess what I'm talking about. If we add some mechanism about preservation of price-discovery mechanisms as well as following of those we might move the human race forward to a better world.

But, this goes beyond your head. Sadly, the politicians are not even close to understanding this. They are like laborers in the last millennium. They don't want to be replaced by robots. But, we'll get there. Just wait and see. Isn't technology marvelous?

Banks vs. Under Mattress (3, Insightful)

retroworks (652802) | about 2 years ago | (#40637689)

GOV: "Ok, I can see the advantages of putting my savings in this "bank". But I want to have just as rapid and priority access to it as I do when I put it under my mattress, I shouldn't have to wait in line if there is a run on the bank." BANK: "Excuse me sir, I was trying to help this lady in front of you."

Solution (2, Insightful)

digitalsolo (1175321) | about 2 years ago | (#40637705)

I have a great idea for a solution.

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:Solution (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40638239)

They don't want to PAY for it until they actually need it.

Re:Solution (1)

digitalsolo (1175321) | about 2 years ago | (#40638675)

Well, really "they" aren't paying for anything, per se. "We" as in the population are paying for it. "They" are just figuring out where to apply our funding.

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 sentence above. I had not yet had any caffeine.

First question: how will the law be abused? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#40637715)

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:First question: how will the law be abused? (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 2 years ago | (#40637845)

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 (1)

belthize (990217) | about 2 years ago | (#40637819)

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 would require the government to have priority access. It's no different than the government's requirement to shutdown parts of the interstate system during an emergency.

Re:Reading Comprehension (1)

belthize (990217) | about 2 years ago | (#40638073)

The interstate example is almost exactly wrong considering the funding source for its creation and original purpose so strike that.

NOT AGAIN (3, Interesting)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#40637871)

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.

Re:NOT AGAIN (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40637985)

Fox news? Gee do you get brownie points for saying that drone?

"“...through all the generations of political extortion, it was not the looting bureaucrats who had taken the blame, but the chained industrialists, not the men who peddled legal flavors, but the men who were forced to buy them; and through all those generations of crusades against corruption, the remedy had always been, not the liberating of the victims, but the granting of wider powers for extortion to the extortionists. The only guilt of the victims, he thought, had been that they accepted it as guilt.”
— Hank Rearden

Emergenct??? (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#40638027)

Keeping in mind that USA is in emergency state since....since it's foundation, i wonder why they just don't say it this simple: "WE NEED ACCESS ALL THE TIME. PERIOD".
Oh, and it reminds of the fact that USA cannot have standing army, unless they have declared war to someone...

Let's all donate (1)

Skapare (16644) | about 2 years ago | (#40638301)

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.

Terrible Headline, Incredibly Misleading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638397)

What the report says is that the Government will not embrace cloud technologies for key security functions unless they have priority. This doesn't mean they are taking priority. It simply means they will continue to rely on their own networks and resources for key security functions. This makes sense.

Do they not realize what a cloud is? (1)

Viewsonic (584922) | about 2 years ago | (#40638509)

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.

Re:Do they not realize what a cloud is? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40638849)

Cloud by very definition is nothing, it is a marketing buzzword.

If they need assured priority... (1)

John Hasler (414242) | about 2 years ago | (#40638769)

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).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...