RE: "Follow the Law" computing

Data sovereignty is what they call it in New Zealand. I heard that the government in NZ made banks move IT back to NZ from Sydney for this reason.

________________________________

From: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com on behalf of James Urquhart
Sent: Fri 6/13/2008 9:02 AM
To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: "Follow the Law" computing

Andrew,

Fascinating response. Thank you.

I especially like the term "political integrity". I think this is what the battle will be about: business expediency versus political integrity.

James

----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew Rogers <....@yahoo.com>
To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:44:30 AM
Subject: Re: "Follow the Law" computing

I've been involved in a number of international policy discussions and architecture designs for distributed system that make those policies reasonably enforceable. In some ways you've over-complicated it though I would note that the set of requirements are in many cases internally inconsistent at a basic theoretical level (d'oh!).

The really short version is that there is a lot of interest and agreement among governments in keeping services and even public data physically within their political jurisdiction. This is the lowest common denominator for all intents and purposes. Now, obviously most countries are unlikely to forbid non-governmental services from leaving the country, but it is very much on their mind. This is also being mixed with distributed and decentralized authentication frameworks for some semblance of service verification. The really hard part is designing a metadata protocol that can support everything the want. The major upside to this is that their (possibly correct) paranoia and desire for interoperability is forcing them to think about globally distributed cloud computing that interoperates at a low-level e.g. standards for very tight integration of services behind political firewalls that can be guaranteed at some level to maintain the political integrity of
those services. It sounds like a good basis for secure interoperability generally.

The consequences of this is that a cloud computing provider should probably think about portability and the ability to manage physical location as a first-class capability. This will be particularly true if it is a specialized cloud that takes advantage of service integration in some fashion. There will be some political advantage to being able to throw up a mini-cloud in a particular jurisdiction as needed -- it gives a lot of bureaucrats warm fuzzies even if it doesn't make sense. No need to have law-based routing, they want the services to be in *their* jurisdiction, which is a very simple policy.

The private sector may care much less about this, but if politics dictates some kind of locality of infrastructure for their own needs it may drive similar decisions by default in the private sector simply because they have a physically local cloud infrastructure. So in a way, this addresses the question raised. If governments ultimately dictate (officially or unofficially) political locality for cloud control purposes, I expect we'll eventually end up with clouds physically located in a large number of jurisdictions that private sector users can choose for whatever purposes suit them. Obviously this means that some governments will setup policies that are politically very friendly to cloud computing in an effort to attract business, particularly if interoperability of services becomes easy and tight.

Or at least that is where I see this going.

Andrew

--- On Fri, 6/13/08, j..@yahoo.com <ju..@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> - 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.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Re: "Follow the Law" computing

Hi all,

On Friday 13 June 2008 16:25:36 Chris Marino wrote:
> >-----Original Message-----
> >On Behalf Of jur...@yahoo.com
[...]
> >moving compute load over the course of an earth day to the dark
> >side of the planet. It is generally called "follow the moon".

Sorry, it's Friday and a distraction, I couldn't let that one pass.

Our Moon orbits the Earth a little under a month, not once a day.

Although generally most visable during night time, it's also visable in the
evening or morning, often some time before dusk or after dawn (respectively).
The Moon is also (spectacularly) visable during a solar eclipses. So, it
isn't always night-time when you can seen the Moon.

The converse also isn't true: when the moon is roughly in conjunction with the
sun, it is not visable at night time at all.

So, in no sense is this following the moon.

Cheers,

Paul.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Re: "Follow the Law" computing

Andrew,

Fascinating response. Thank you.

I especially like the term "political integrity". I think this is what the battle will be about: business expediency versus political integrity.

James

----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew Rogers <j...@yahoo.com>
To: cloud-computing@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 8:44:30 AM
Subject: Re: "Follow the Law" computing

I've been involved in a number of international policy discussions and architecture designs for distributed system that make those policies reasonably enforceable. In some ways you've over-complicated it though I would note that the set of requirements are in many cases internally inconsistent at a basic theoretical level (d'oh!).

The really short version is that there is a lot of interest and agreement among governments in keeping services and even public data physically within their political jurisdiction. This is the lowest common denominator for all intents and purposes. Now, obviously most countries are unlikely to forbid non-governmental services from leaving the country, but it is very much on their mind. This is also being mixed with distributed and decentralized authentication frameworks for some semblance of service verification. The really hard part is designing a metadata protocol that can support everything the want. The major upside to this is that their (possibly correct) paranoia and desire for interoperability is forcing them to think about globally distributed cloud computing that interoperates at a low-level e.g. standards for very tight integration of services behind political firewalls that can be guaranteed at some level to maintain the political integrity of
those services. It sounds like a good basis for secure interoperability generally.

The consequences of this is that a cloud computing provider should probably think about portability and the ability to manage physical location as a first-class capability. This will be particularly true if it is a specialized cloud that takes advantage of service integration in some fashion. There will be some political advantage to being able to throw up a mini-cloud in a particular jurisdiction as needed -- it gives a lot of bureaucrats warm fuzzies even if it doesn't make sense. No need to have law-based routing, they want the services to be in *their* jurisdiction, which is a very simple policy.

The private sector may care much less about this, but if politics dictates some kind of locality of infrastructure for their own needs it may drive similar decisions by default in the private sector simply because they have a physically local cloud infrastructure. So in a way, this addresses the question raised. If governments ultimately dictate (officially or unofficially) political locality for cloud control purposes, I expect we'll eventually end up with clouds physically located in a large number of jurisdictions that private sector users can choose for whatever purposes suit them. Obviously this means that some governments will setup policies that are politically very friendly to cloud computing in an effort to attract business, particularly if interoperability of services becomes easy and tight.

Or at least that is where I see this going.

Andrew

--- On Fri, 6/13/08, jur....@yahoo.com <...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> - 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.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Re: "Follow the Law" computing

I've been involved in a number of international policy discussions and architecture designs for distributed system that make those policies reasonably enforceable. In some ways you've over-complicated it though I would note that the set of requirements are in many cases internally inconsistent at a basic theoretical level (d'oh!).

The really short version is that there is a lot of interest and agreement among governments in keeping services and even public data physically within their political jurisdiction. This is the lowest common denominator for all intents and purposes. Now, obviously most countries are unlikely to forbid non-governmental services from leaving the country, but it is very much on their mind. This is also being mixed with distributed and decentralized authentication frameworks for some semblance of service verification. The really hard part is designing a metadata protocol that can support everything the want. The major upside to this is that their (possibly correct) paranoia and desire for interoperability is forcing them to think about globally distributed cloud computing that interoperates at a low-level e.g. standards for very tight integration of services behind political firewalls that can be guaranteed at some level to maintain the political integrity of
those services. It sounds like a good basis for secure interoperability generally.

The consequences of this is that a cloud computing provider should probably think about portability and the ability to manage physical location as a first-class capability. This will be particularly true if it is a specialized cloud that takes advantage of service integration in some fashion. There will be some political advantage to being able to throw up a mini-cloud in a particular jurisdiction as needed -- it gives a lot of bureaucrats warm fuzzies even if it doesn't make sense. No need to have law-based routing, they want the services to be in *their* jurisdiction, which is a very simple policy.

The private sector may care much less about this, but if politics dictates some kind of locality of infrastructure for their own needs it may drive similar decisions by default in the private sector simply because they have a physically local cloud infrastructure. So in a way, this addresses the question raised. If governments ultimately dictate (officially or unofficially) political locality for cloud control purposes, I expect we'll eventually end up with clouds physically located in a large number of jurisdictions that private sector users can choose for whatever purposes suit them. Obviously this means that some governments will setup policies that are politically very friendly to cloud computing in an effort to attract business, particularly if interoperability of services becomes easy and tight.

Or at least that is where I see this going.

Andrew

--- On Fri, 6/13/08, ju...t@yahoo.com <ju..@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> - 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.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Re: "Follow the Law" computing

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

Re: "Follow the Law" computing

Laws and policies don't change often on a single region (USA), taken across a global infrastructure they changes very quickly. I agree with most of James points. I posted thread about "GeoPolitical Cloud Computing" a few weeks ago which touched upon the some of the same points.

On a side note, my biggest issue with Nick Carr is he very theoretical, I prefer a more practical look at infrastructure from people who are actually building these next generation data centers.

Nice Job on the post.

Reuven

On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Chris Marino <c...@snaplogic.com> wrote:

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
>
>>

--
--

Reuven Cohen
Founder & Chief Technologist, Enomaly Inc.
www.enomaly.com :: 416 848 6036 x 1
skype: ruv.net // aol: ruv6

blog > www.elasticvapor.com
-
Get Linked in> http://linkedin.com/pub/0/b72/7b4
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

"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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---