> Caffarra frames the challenge starkly: "Imagine if Americans woke up one morning to discover that 90 percent of their digital infrastructure was owned by Europeans. Would they regulate? Or would they march to the White House and demand action: 'Let's build'?"
We can't test if they would "demand action" given that the US solutions are already built, but I think we can see that they definitely do regulate whenever something starts competing heavily against US companies. See Huawei, TikTok, DJI.
People who call for fewer regulations systematically mean "fewer regulations for me, but regulations for the others when they compete against me". Not just in the US of course.
Even then, the US largely resists regulation, even if that is somewhat changing. You can look in terms of essential infrastructure, manufacturing and technology overall beyond software. The U.S. largely has lost control over most of it. And while I'm not in favor of isolation, I find that purely from a security perspective, the US should be capable and in a position to fulfill at least half of its' infrastructure needs domestically, and should be optimized to do so.
IMO this should include food, medications, communications and physical infrastructure needs. Not every nation is large or vast enough to do this, the US emphatically is and should take advantage of it. Every nation should work towards the best interest of its' citizens needs, and negotiate with others in good faith assuming they are doing the same.
I think that globalist and corporatist mindsets are dangerous in general. that's just my take.
Edit: to be clear, I absolutely accept and encourage the EU and EU governments in terms of exercising and increasing a position of independence and sovereignty... I'm only pointing out that the US position isn't exactly as strong as it probably should be either.
"We cannot allow Europe's biggest export to be regulation," is the phrase I think of after reading this article. I am hopeful that Europe will continue to cultivate an environment full of talent and capital that can produce formidable alternatives to the hyperscalers.
But, today, as the article notes, "European alternatives do exist...Yet for many organizations, distinguishing real alternatives from false promises has become increasingly difficult."
Too bad most of these initiatives don't actually include funding the ongoing and continuing development of open alternatives in practice. All the hand waving about saving money notwithstanding, I want to see open solutions that actually work better than MS Office and Active Directory in practice, that can be managed by relatively mortal beings in govt orgs.
I may not agree with China's control of the internet, but it was never only about censorship. They now have an increasingly complete domestic ecosystem and they would 100% not have had that if Google, Microsoft, AWS and friends had set up camp and head-shotted nascent competitors as they peeked over the parapet.
Sadly it's even more likely to be corporate ad-filled, data-mining, AI-ridden, bloated junkware than the American stuff, with presumably lots of shovelling money at chosen companies rather than leaning into FOSS. On the other hand, it at least mostly looks like it's stealing your data, rather than a sober-looking American system that looks trustworthy but is still stealing the data.
They're not wrong. But, people's tolerance for failure is low, and starting to match existing service levels will demand more cost (-one kind of failure) or risk (the bigger one) of data loss.
I very much hope this survives the first significant failure.
Maybe it depends on the framing. In the past when it was a question of costs, it was harder to justify.
But now I think more and more people see it as a problem of sovereignty. Everybody does protectionism. People in the US most definitely wouldn't want to be in the situation of Europe and largely support protectionism (see Huawei, TikTok, DJI).
Europe is behind, but maybe people start to realise that it's not so great to have that level of dependence on [here the US], and maybe they will be more tolerant.
I think its getting clearer that much of the cloud uptime/safety has been luck and a lack of true hostility. If China were in a posture like the hermit state it would have deleted Microsoft cloud data wholesale and the US based firm would have focused it's energy on restoring its priority customers. I wouldn't bank on the US not getting that hostility out of China in the next 3 years.
> But, people's tolerance for failure is low, and starting to match existing service levels will demand more cost (-one kind of failure) or risk (the bigger one) of data loss.
"Nice datacenter you have. Such a pity that it has ... connection problems. ".
there is an advantage to not bieng the biggest in a fight, in that you know when you are bleeding and need to retreat and regroup.
where the US is so big that time and time it keeps backing much smaller countrys into corners and forcing an extitential conflict where by the time they figure out the other guy is just going to fight to the death, AND has friends, and the US can never proffit.
Now the US is threatening, Greenland, again,while desperatly trying to conjure a reason to invade south america
ALL of it as a bluff to buy time for the always almost quantum AI supremecy that will deliver ever greater technological power, forever.
or maybe is too much ket and coke
It just keeps baffling me how some bureaucrats think. I first saw this working for the EU as a consultant, but these people actually do believe this. The fact is that the CIA and the NSA have both had leaks that confirmed they were spying on Microsoft, Google, Yahoo's customers before the US CLOUD act even existed. Hell, they were doing it before some of these companies' clouds even existed. And much has been made from the fact that they violated US law to do it (much was made of the scandal that the CIA is supposed to avoid spying on US citizens and leaks proved they didn't do that in the slightest)
Only an EU bureaucrat could make a case that states respect the law when spying. I mean, how absurd is that idea?
To make it worse still, France has been caught doing to the same. Their colleagues! And frankly, I'd be deeply disappointed if every EU country and the US aren't currently doing the same to China and 5 other countries right as you're reading this.
In these circumstances, EU bureaucrats apparently are still unwilling to believe that a state would violate laws as they spy. DESPITE their own colleagues doing the same (France violates EU and French law to spy on US companies).
The problem with US spying is not the US CLOUD act. It is using US hardware and software under the effective control of US companies at all. The solution to that cannot be getting a pinky promise, I guess from Trump, that the spying will stop. Even congress repealing that law would mean exactly nothing.
> Caffarra frames the challenge starkly: "Imagine if Americans woke up one morning to discover that 90 percent of their digital infrastructure was owned by Europeans. Would they regulate? Or would they march to the White House and demand action: 'Let's build'?"
We can't test if they would "demand action" given that the US solutions are already built, but I think we can see that they definitely do regulate whenever something starts competing heavily against US companies. See Huawei, TikTok, DJI.
People who call for fewer regulations systematically mean "fewer regulations for me, but regulations for the others when they compete against me". Not just in the US of course.
Even then, the US largely resists regulation, even if that is somewhat changing. You can look in terms of essential infrastructure, manufacturing and technology overall beyond software. The U.S. largely has lost control over most of it. And while I'm not in favor of isolation, I find that purely from a security perspective, the US should be capable and in a position to fulfill at least half of its' infrastructure needs domestically, and should be optimized to do so.
IMO this should include food, medications, communications and physical infrastructure needs. Not every nation is large or vast enough to do this, the US emphatically is and should take advantage of it. Every nation should work towards the best interest of its' citizens needs, and negotiate with others in good faith assuming they are doing the same.
I think that globalist and corporatist mindsets are dangerous in general. that's just my take.
Edit: to be clear, I absolutely accept and encourage the EU and EU governments in terms of exercising and increasing a position of independence and sovereignty... I'm only pointing out that the US position isn't exactly as strong as it probably should be either.
"We cannot allow Europe's biggest export to be regulation," is the phrase I think of after reading this article. I am hopeful that Europe will continue to cultivate an environment full of talent and capital that can produce formidable alternatives to the hyperscalers.
But, today, as the article notes, "European alternatives do exist...Yet for many organizations, distinguishing real alternatives from false promises has become increasingly difficult."
Too bad most of these initiatives don't actually include funding the ongoing and continuing development of open alternatives in practice. All the hand waving about saving money notwithstanding, I want to see open solutions that actually work better than MS Office and Active Directory in practice, that can be managed by relatively mortal beings in govt orgs.
I may not agree with China's control of the internet, but it was never only about censorship. They now have an increasingly complete domestic ecosystem and they would 100% not have had that if Google, Microsoft, AWS and friends had set up camp and head-shotted nascent competitors as they peeked over the parapet.
Sadly it's even more likely to be corporate ad-filled, data-mining, AI-ridden, bloated junkware than the American stuff, with presumably lots of shovelling money at chosen companies rather than leaning into FOSS. On the other hand, it at least mostly looks like it's stealing your data, rather than a sober-looking American system that looks trustworthy but is still stealing the data.
They're not wrong. But, people's tolerance for failure is low, and starting to match existing service levels will demand more cost (-one kind of failure) or risk (the bigger one) of data loss.
I very much hope this survives the first significant failure.
Maybe it depends on the framing. In the past when it was a question of costs, it was harder to justify.
But now I think more and more people see it as a problem of sovereignty. Everybody does protectionism. People in the US most definitely wouldn't want to be in the situation of Europe and largely support protectionism (see Huawei, TikTok, DJI).
Europe is behind, but maybe people start to realise that it's not so great to have that level of dependence on [here the US], and maybe they will be more tolerant.
I think its getting clearer that much of the cloud uptime/safety has been luck and a lack of true hostility. If China were in a posture like the hermit state it would have deleted Microsoft cloud data wholesale and the US based firm would have focused it's energy on restoring its priority customers. I wouldn't bank on the US not getting that hostility out of China in the next 3 years.
> But, people's tolerance for failure is low, and starting to match existing service levels will demand more cost (-one kind of failure) or risk (the bigger one) of data loss.
"Nice datacenter you have. Such a pity that it has ... connection problems. ".
Microsoft is moving everything in the cloud.
(Takes popcorn) EU is doing the same.
Some people never learn.
They migrated from Skype for business to nextcloud? How does that make sense?
Title slightly shortened to fit HN limits.
there is an advantage to not bieng the biggest in a fight, in that you know when you are bleeding and need to retreat and regroup. where the US is so big that time and time it keeps backing much smaller countrys into corners and forcing an extitential conflict where by the time they figure out the other guy is just going to fight to the death, AND has friends, and the US can never proffit. Now the US is threatening, Greenland, again,while desperatly trying to conjure a reason to invade south america ALL of it as a bluff to buy time for the always almost quantum AI supremecy that will deliver ever greater technological power, forever. or maybe is too much ket and coke
It just keeps baffling me how some bureaucrats think. I first saw this working for the EU as a consultant, but these people actually do believe this. The fact is that the CIA and the NSA have both had leaks that confirmed they were spying on Microsoft, Google, Yahoo's customers before the US CLOUD act even existed. Hell, they were doing it before some of these companies' clouds even existed. And much has been made from the fact that they violated US law to do it (much was made of the scandal that the CIA is supposed to avoid spying on US citizens and leaks proved they didn't do that in the slightest)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7
https://archive.ph/u4DwB
The CIA has been caught doing industrial espionage for US firms. And, the French secret service has had a similar leak.
https://www.economist.com/special-report/2003/06/12/airbuss-...
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19930418/1696416/bo...
Only an EU bureaucrat could make a case that states respect the law when spying. I mean, how absurd is that idea?
To make it worse still, France has been caught doing to the same. Their colleagues! And frankly, I'd be deeply disappointed if every EU country and the US aren't currently doing the same to China and 5 other countries right as you're reading this.
In these circumstances, EU bureaucrats apparently are still unwilling to believe that a state would violate laws as they spy. DESPITE their own colleagues doing the same (France violates EU and French law to spy on US companies).
The problem with US spying is not the US CLOUD act. It is using US hardware and software under the effective control of US companies at all. The solution to that cannot be getting a pinky promise, I guess from Trump, that the spying will stop. Even congress repealing that law would mean exactly nothing.
> [...] bureaucrats think.
You have an error in your reasoning.
> Europe gets serious about cutting digital umbilical chord with US big tech
Oh, I'm all in tears. /s EU will not cut its ombilical cord. Not as long as vdL is at the top.