Re: "Follow the Law" computing

Keep in mind, "jurisdiction" means "authority", and
there are several meanings of "authority"/"power"/"place".

There is the technically legal (primary law) and
then there is the wisy-washy legal (statutory, or
"case law").

The rule of thumb is that governemnts will extend
themselves to fill any "void", they'll assume power
until someone tells them otherwise. Usually, the
only entity that tells them otherwise is another
government employee, a judge.

It is the old adage;
"If they're doing it, they must be 'authorized' to
do it"; Not necessarily so.

What you're really talking about is economics.

Where is it cheapesat to run a job, and by cheap
I mean all aspects, regulatory, utility, hardware,
software, cooling, electical, labor force, etc.

Many Americans become Ex-pats, they move to Costa Rica,
Belize, etc. They move not because the laws are
any better, but because practically they have a better
chance of living a better life, being left alone,
or more reasonably paying the bribes to make this
so.

What I'm trying to say, is that the term "legal" is
not so black-and-white as one might think.

Our US "laws" such as the Patriot Act are technically
"Illegal". They conflict with the primary law of the
Constitution. But, if not overturned, they stand.
Citizens may (should) ignore such laws, but that
may not stop them from being thrown in the slammer.

The courts have a nasty habit of ruling in favor of
what's "practicle", as opposed to what's required of
them via the oath. They do what's politically
expedient.

It isn't cut and dry. There is what a "jurisdiction"
claims is legal, and there is what is technically
legal, and there is what is practically enforcable.

"Jurisdiction" also, interestingly, means "a place".
A place under a unified rule/ruler.

The US has a habit of sending a suponea to a "jurisdiction"
in which they have no power (like, Cayman), and then
they twist arms to get compliance. They play the
game on multiple levels (military, treaty, trade, etc.).

Look at offshore gambling for a template. It didn't
necessarily matter that this was outside US jurisdiction,
they shut it down in other ways, like credit card
processing (funding mechanisms).

--- ju...@yahoo.com wrote:

From: James Urquhart <ju...@yahoo.com>
To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: "Follow the Law" computing
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:25:19 -0700 (PDT)

I guess I wasn't clear enough when making my point. Its not about migrating because laws change in any one country, or even in general. Its about looking at your overall compute tasks, and figuring out which jurisdictions are most beneficial to the current task and/or data needs. In other words, moving workloads around the world to make sure that the overall workflow is always executed in a legally friendly geography. Or, moving and/or replicating data to make sure the action you wish to take against that data is handled as legally as possible.

Its about automating loopholes.

James

----- Original Message ----
From: Chris Marino <c...@snaplogic.com>
To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 7:25:36 AM
Subject: RE: "Follow the Law" computing

Laws and policies don't change very fast, if at all. Can't think of any
circumstances where I'd really want to move or migrate data because of
this.

Seems like a stretch to me.
CM

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
>[mailto:cloud-computing@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of
>ju..@yahoo.com
>Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 12:09 AM
>To: Cloud Computing
>Subject: "Follow the Law" computing
>
>I posted about a subject that I thought this group may like to chew on.
>
>- There is a theory out there about using cloud
>technologies--both public and private--to save on operational
>costs (such as electricity and cooling) by moving compute load
>over the course of an earth day to the dark side of the
>planet. It is generally called "follow the moon".
>
>- However, both Canada and France have provided examples of
>policies set with the Geopolitical realities of "the cloud" in
>mind. (Canada prohibits public IT projects from running in US
>data centers due to the Patriot Act, and France refuses to
>allow government employees to use Blackberries as the
>communications are processed in the UK and US where France
>fears interception risk is high.)
>
>- So, why not consider moving workload to wherever the current
>task is "most legal" using a combination of database sharding,
>database replication and vmotion/livemotion. At the very
>least, make it damn near impossible for a single jurisdiction
>to nail you with a violation.
>
>See http://blog.jamesurquhart.com/2008/06/follow-law-computing.html
>for the detailed rundown.
>
>I can't shake this vision, though I know there are many holes.
> What do you think?
>
>James

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cloud Computing" group.
To post to this group, send email to cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cloud-computing-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ca/group/cloud-computing?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---