[LINK] [PRIVACY] Re: Where the Coalition stored its policies

Jan Whitaker jwhit at janwhitaker.com
Mon Sep 23 10:11:13 AEST 2013

At 09:56 AM 23/09/2013, Geordie Guy wrote:
>I don't mean to pour water on what this likely means, but... it 
>probably means nothing at all.

That's OK, Geordie. I would have thought they would have at least 
used a redirect from their own website domain rather than expose 
their non-local storage. I'll say it's non-storage because that is unknown.

>AWS is now a defacto standard for standing up websites quickly and 
>in a manner to withstand sudden interest and associated traffic 
>deluges.  Many... most... web platforms like Squarespace and their 
>ilk rely on AWS, particularly at the back end, to deliver their 
>products.  It's extremely likely that the coalition actually had no 
>idea who their provider's provider was.  They just said they wanted 
>a website and got one with an associated guarantee about uptime.

That's a fair enough selection factor -- burst traffic handling and 
reliability. But it's not enough. We do not know what they are 
collecting. Their privacy statement doesn't address anything other 
than motherhood statements about 'respecting your privacy' and using 
cookies that you can refuse.

>Also the fact it's in AWS S3 doesn't actually tell us anything about 
>whether it's offshore or onshore, it's as likely to be in Amazon's 
>Sydney datacentre as anywhere else.  More likely even, as that would 
>give the best performance.

Again, we don't know what they're actually doing. And besides, they 
say first that because they are a political party, they are exempt 
from any privacy laws anyway, so in the words of Alfred E. Newman - 
"Why worry?"


Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com

Sooner or later, I hate to break it to you, you're gonna die, so how 
do you fill in the space between here and there? It's yours. Seize your space.
~Margaret Atwood, writer

_ __________________ _

More information about the Link mailing list