[LINK] Microsoft slams local data centre edict
rick at praxis.com.au
Fri Nov 25 10:29:36 AEDT 2011
Jan Whitaker wrote:
> The position MS takes about not focusing on the security misses the
> governance problem: whose law will cover the screw ups? It's not just
> about technical security or even privacy. It is about jurisdictional
> accountability. IANAL, but the issue of server location has seemed to
> be powerful enough for other actions where jurisdiction comes into
> play. Why does Microsoft say in their submission (as quoted in the
> article) that the government could contract them to meet the local
> jurisdictional requirements? Is that accurate?
I have a contract with an Aussie mob which has a clause stating that
the contract is bound by the laws governing the State of NSW in Australia,
and that any legal actions taken with regards to the contract shall be
heard in a court of NSW. I am currently in Canada doing the actual work.
But if any court action arises under this contract, it will take place
under the jurisidiction of NSW.
So it appears that a contract can set the terms of the jurisdiction.
But! If the data centre is hosted offshore and another gummint decides
to intervene and even acquire that data, there is probably little one
could do onshore in Australia about it.
My overarching reaction to the MS mumblings is "they really have gall to
talk about security of data." On whose software live the 200,000,000+
zombies out in the wild? Whose software has cost $ TRILLIONS in lost
time and data due to security exploits? And whose marketing dept has
the temerity and the balls to hard sell themselves as offering secure
solutions for business and gummints, but at the same time disclaim
any liability for such on their product packaging?
Answer at 11:00.
Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services
As our own species is in the process of proving, one cannot have superior science
and inferior morals. The combination is unstable and self-destroying.
-- Arthur C Clarke
More information about the Link