There are many regulations over there which prevent data from leaving the country.
Sometimes those rules can have serious consequences.
AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
211–220 of 463 posts
Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> This is the first administration in a long time with the cohones to do something about it. Containment worked WAY WAY better than "doing something about it" and surrendering the strait to them. They "solved it" by aerosolizing asbestos everywhere and still have no cleanup plan. Sometimes containment works much better, which is why intelligent foreign policy worked the problem from that angle. Wasn't victory declare…
> Containment worked WAY WAY better than "doing something about it" and surrendering the strait to them.
We haven't surrendered anything to them. It's an open secret that the U.S. has been moving oil out of the Strait all along. Of course, all the IRGC does is attack civilian ships because it is unable to do anything against the U.S. Navy, and knows it would face immense pain if it directly attacked American military vessels. Last time the IRGC tried, it lost half a dozen oil tankers that were sitting ducks in the Strait. The only language these people understand is violence. An MoU was signed this summer, but the IRGC had a point to make and resumed attacks shortly after.
And containment hasn't worked well at all. Iran has been building underground facilities for more than two decades. It is very clear that they want to be a nuclear power, and we can't let that happen. The moment you grant Iran any kind of ceasefire or sanction relief, that money goes straight into funding weapons and terrorism.
Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
#213Well… they have a good excuse.
And witness
Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a very engineer-centric view. I studied economics in school, so an analogy in that realm is ironically how all countries should specialize and raise the PPC curve. The reality of the situation was that in 2010 not many people understood how powerful big data actually was. Data sovereignty is actually quite logical when you consider the scale and power of not only the company, but the US as a whole. I can assu…
See my other answers, but briefly: no, they were not thinking about this, which is why we were raising it. I guess the counterintuitive point we were trying to get across is that with most things, the best way to keep it safe from being lost is to put it in a known place, and lock it away. But for data, the strategy -- for that scenario -- is to keep it in a lot of places, with heterogenous defense strategies. This i…
> This is for data loss, of course, not access or surveillance or unlawful processing.
This is why the minority of politicians who actually know about how this stuff works worry about where the data resides for jurisdictional purposes. If the government where the data resides can compel the folks who have physical and/or logical access to the physical machines that contain that data to give them access to that data, then that's game over for you.
«But you just don't permit that sort of breach to happen!» you might say. To which I reply "Yeah, right.".
Substantial physical separation of datacenters is very important, but the politics and policies of the location housing the data cannot be ignored.
Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that lots of people seem to be under the impression that they are doing it right because they are using AWS. They don't realize that AWS is a toolbox, not a 'ready made solution for redundancy against all catastrophes you are possibly exposed to'. They use that to their advantage by pricing such solutions at a level that people will either pay through the nose or will be left without recourse when AWS…
Not to be callous but even the 3-2-1 rule is pretty basic, the issue is that people don't apply it. But that's a hiring and strategy thing.
[flagged]
Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
The caveat is always "if you're using the service correctly " which is not necessarily free. Meaning taking advantage of multiple geo zones, building in redundancy to your stack, etc. Like everything he said is possible if your technology stack living in AWS was designed to survive it. Everyone who has ever had the "we lost your data" email from AWS knows at the end of the day the cloud is just someone else's data ce…
No, that quotation on the GP clearly states that AWS has enough redundancy within the same region that they will continue all services running on it if a datacenter is destroyed. It's very clearly not about you being able to set-up redundancy for yourself.
That's actually true. AWS is designed to survive one datacenter being offline (which happened more than once, btw). When the first DC in ME was hit, AWS continued working normally, with only a few services experiencing issues.
But it's not designed to survive TWO datacenters going offline, and in a permanent fashion.
Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
#217I think this is due to the data residency requirements in UAE. I'm working with a client in the health space and the government requirements requires me to store data only in UAE! Tried with AWS but they were not allowing any new instances and I had to go with Azure.
Check if the requirement is "only in the uae" or has to have the primary copy in the UAE
Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know why Iranians were chanting "Death To America"? Because we toppled their democratically elected government in 1953 and installed a brutal dictator so that we could continue to pillage their oil.(1) When the mullahs finally toppled that dictator in 1979 they had reason to be angry with us. This is especially true because almost immediately afterwards, in the 1980s, we used our proxy Saddam Hussein to launch…
We're chanting "Death to Iran" - isn't turnabout fair play?
Perhaps. If we had just chanted slogans instead of launching an unprovoked surprise attack that killed hundreds of their leaders along with thousands of civilians it would be fair play.
Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on the data. If this is EBS or single-AZ S3, then from Amazon's perspective this was correct. Backup responsibly (for any data that does need to be backed up) lives with the customer, and Amazon has no way of knowing about that. EBS data data is unrecoverable, and that's what's reported. Now if this was multi-AZ S3 or whatever then this would be significant. The article does not tell us what products wer…
I was unaware that Amazon even sold single AZ S3. 20% discount. Doesn't seem worth it. By the time I commit to purchasing S3 space, it has to be important data. I get that S3 is convenient and reasonably performant, but it is not cheap at all.
Yeah agreed - any ephemeral stuff I need is generally in DynamoDB - S3 (and database) are for permanent storage.
Re: AWS says it can't restore some data from mideast facilities struck by Iran
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on the data. If this is EBS or single-AZ S3, then from Amazon's perspective this was correct. Backup responsibly (for any data that does need to be backed up) lives with the customer, and Amazon has no way of knowing about that. EBS data data is unrecoverable, and that's what's reported. Now if this was multi-AZ S3 or whatever then this would be significant. The article does not tell us what products wer…
I was unaware that Amazon even sold single AZ S3. 20% discount. Doesn't seem worth it. By the time I commit to purchasing S3 space, it has to be important data. I get that S3 is convenient and reasonably performant, but it is not cheap at all.
It's a great service for large caches. For example, we process a lot of imagery that we download from third-party providers. We save a lot of latency by storing the data in a single-AZ S3.
If it dies, we will just have to re-download the data.