[LINK] Microsoft slams local data centre edict

Jan Whitaker jwhit at melbpc.org.au
Sun Nov 27 13:08:26 AEDT 2011

At 12:08 PM 27/11/2011, Philip Argy wrote:
>The encryption
>mechanism can be as strong as you wish - 5,000+ bit keys if you're so
>inclined!  What's important is where access control is - not where the
>data is.

It's an interesting strategy that would need to be tested in court. I 
can see an additional level of liability: break the encryption, the 
asserting security agent would be liable under Australian law. Steal 
the encrypted data from the storage point, wouldn't the local storage 
jurisdiction apply?

It's an interesting way to share the risk, but not very consumer 
friendly, still, should things fall over badly.

Why complicate matters by off-shoring the data? Aren't we up to it?


Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com

Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or 
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer

_ __________________ _

More information about the Link mailing list