HMRC gives £700 million IT contract to Amazon.
- Thread starter Kudoscycles
- Start date
I am pretty sure that a multi-million pound contract carries a lot more specific terms than the SLA contract that I sign up to.
There is no reason to think that the location of the data has to be abroad.
Redundancy can be created within the UK data farms.
That's a very specific context: 2001 antitrust case, United States v. Microsoft Corp.
The said account can be relevant in their investigation.
I can't see the US government compel Amazon to hand over HMRC databases.
No it doesn't have, as I posted earlier they are using third party server facilities in Britain now, following using their own servers outside of the UK in places like Dublin, Frankfurt and the USA. They just like to mislead by being very secretive about this subject.
Information link
.
Sorry for some reason it down loaded the wrong Wikipedia to you . please Google search against microsoft case USA Ireland and it will lead to the Microsoft v USA case to be heard at the us supreme court this session.
I have been using sync.com for some time 'secure' in the knowledge / belief that my data is secure and only to me?
100%private cloud
Sync's unique, zero-knowledge storage platform guarantees your privacy by providing end-to-end encryption, and only you have access to the keys.
100%private cloud
Sync's unique, zero-knowledge storage platform guarantees your privacy by providing end-to-end encryption, and only you have access to the keys.
AWS run about 2 millions servers worldwide.
I don't know why some of you insist on imaginary issues.
Personally, I think they do the right thing.
I don't know why some of you insist on imaginary issues.
Personally, I think they do the right thing.
And they do things rather well.
The fact that they have brought about a seismic change to retail is only a threat to less efficient competition or should I say to unnecessary competition.
... You therefore have not yet had the opportunity to read that link? It is not an imaginary issue if it needs to be judged on by the US Supreme Court.
What is at stake is
1. Whether there is a future for international cloud computing
2. Extra territorial jurisdiction by the US
In my opinion a sovereign state must have sovereign control of its citizens data. If that means it must invest in its own equipment, require all its agents , accessing that data to be subject to official secrets act, well that's the price of sovereignty
I read the story.
It's the DoJ vs Microsoft.
Nothing to do with the UK.
1. Whether there is a future for international cloud computing
Yes.
I don't know if you know much about Cisco routers OS. The same argument could be aired about US dominance because Cisco routers are ubiquitous on the net.
2. Extra territorial jurisdiction by the US
I think the customers are responsible to ensure adequate protection measures to complement the infrastructure in a cloud computing environment. The providers can deal with things like perimeter defense.
Woosh, come on now... The UK is not explicitly included, but the case is about the right of the US government, specially the department of justice, to compel US corporations, to supply data from servers not present in the US on foot of a US warrant. Many soverign states and the EU have citizen data protection laws in place. Were the DoJ to win this case, it would kill off any European involvement by US companies in the collection and retention of data because no person or company would be immune from any fishing expedition by the FBI. The US executives would be required by law to furnish the data. Failure to do so would be viewed as contempt of court and imprisonment until such contempt be purged.
Talking about Cisco is a red herring... protection of one's data is a red herring... Other than any European company would automatically be in breach of both their own states and EU directives on protection of their clients data, if they used a US company.
You try hard to contrive a hypothetical situation which is quite different in context.
I can see why the DoJ compels a US corporation to deliver up some of their emails not stored on US soil. It's another matter to ask Amazon to break UK laws.
I can see why the DoJ compels a US corporation to deliver up some of their emails not stored on US soil. It's another matter to ask Amazon to break UK laws.
No no no .. this is not hypothetical, it is fact.. The context is little different...
. If. Amazon, a US corporation, receives a request for Mr Wooshes income and expenditure, because there is an assumption that he was drug dealing, or supporting Breton freedom fighters, and the US FBI believe that this can make a case against him, they get a warrant.
Probably the DoJ requests the UK revenue for the information both as a courtesy and to expedite the investigation, which they might decline to give, on foot of your EU rights.
Their court then orders Jeff Bozos to hand it over or he goes in the clink.
That is precisely the situation where Microsoft is now in. The Redmond executives are still out of prison because the original court decisions are under appeal at the US Supreme Court. For Microsoft to have handed over the email of this person would be in breach of Irish and EU law... We may not be as large as the UK but we are fierce on defending our rights....
Just remember that the US is very concerned about anyone breaking their laws and rules and detaining their citizens, but have less interest in defending other counties laws.
And again if you believe my references to encryption as legally munitions as fanciful, I would refer you back to the birth of PGP and the case against its author Zimmerman in 1993. ... You can argue that the scenario of you being labelled a terrorist because you refuse to hand over your private key, and are therefore dealing with "munitions" as hypothetical and it is, only because the court cases are still outstanding.
Last edited:
there are international tax and extradition treaties for cases like that.
If this were doable, the drug barons wouldn't deposit their money in US banks or any banks.
Ordering a US corporation to deliver up third party's documents that it holds on foreign soil is going to start a trade war. In the caase of the US Government vs Microsoft, the email server belongs to Microsoft, the emails belong also to Microsoft.
Woosh your counterargument are becoming more and more bizarre. The only sentence in this last one I can agree with is that it can start a trade war. That is why the stakes are so high and the case gets to the supreme court
The attached , may give some additional clarity as to whome your personal email data belongs . It all relates to the same case... And granted it is only one side of the arguement, but the proponent is a heavy weight....
https://abovethelaw.com/2015/08/who-owns-your-email-an-interview-with-brad-smith-general-counsel-of-microsoft/
https://abovethelaw.com/2015/08/who-owns-your-email-an-interview-with-brad-smith-general-counsel-of-microsoft/
One side of the argument maybe, but undoubtedly correct. The comparison with surface mail is apposite. The content of an email belongs to the author and can only be shared with an addressee, unless the author gives express permission otherwise or the author's national government legally rules otherwise within national boundaries in the interests of national security.
.
ownership of emails is shared between the sender and receiver. For most people who do not own their mail exchangers, they have also given access to third parties who/which check the contents for virus, advertising, archiving and other processing activities.
Ownership of other data where the service providers only rent and maintain the bare metal is of exclusively the renter of the metal and plastic. That's why data is encrypted end to end and within the databases. There is also no restriction on which encryption the renter can use.
The two situations are very distinct.
HMRC rent the servers because they need the virtual machines. The software is likely theirs rather than AWS.
Ownership of other data where the service providers only rent and maintain the bare metal is of exclusively the renter of the metal and plastic. That's why data is encrypted end to end and within the databases. There is also no restriction on which encryption the renter can use.
The two situations are very distinct.
HMRC rent the servers because they need the virtual machines. The software is likely theirs rather than AWS.
Last edited:
A state body, the UK revenue, to whom you are required to give truthful information, on pain of imprisonment, chooses to put that information , whether encrypted or not on machinery owned and controlled by a foreign power. That foreign company , under pain of imprisonment by its own government may demand that that data be provided to them.
Whether they have difficulty in decryption of the data is a moot point.
The US government can and could by regulation require that all data stored by US companies be decryptable by keys provided to them. ... Court cases pending.
And in any event the power of decryption software and hardware under the control of US state is formidable.
And you are happy with this.?
If the UK government \ state wants to hold information on you or I ( though not being a UK tax payer in my case unlikely), then it needs to hold it secured. By having total control on its physical local and all means of access, and immune from challenges legal or otherwise from third parties.