Comment by denton-scratch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by denton-scratch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If it's inadvertent, then they can remedy the error once they've been notified.

If an IP address is sent to the USA, then whether it's stored or not ceases to be a matter that European courts can oversee. Since US courts and European courts are not in accord on these matters, Europeans are faced with either banning the export of IP addresses to the USA, or giving up on legislating privacy at all. We chose the former.

> it seems you’re just a moron with a nationalistic tendency

Oh, more name-calling, and more conclusions jumped to. If you can't make an argument, make a personal insult, and decorate it with insulting epithets based on nothing at all.

> future generations on your continent suffer

Ah, you're not from these parts! I thought not. But in the light of that fact, it's our concern, not yours, right? So why do you get SO angry about European law? If you want to trade in Europe, you have to comply with European regulations. Same wherever you want to trade.

I don't approve of the US trade environment. For example, about half the world is under US trade sanctions; but you don't get me marching around accusing USAians of being morons, weazels, assholes, and clowns.

Perhaps the truth is that it is you that is the nationalist?

"remedy the error"? Care to put that in a sentence like "Remedy the error of using the internet"

You expect a business that's invested in the AWS stack to up and move overnight because some illiterate morons in Brussels decided that?

I don't care much what decisions random businesses make.

It has been my view for a long time that entrusting your infrastructure to the tender mercies of a firm like Amazon is reckless. Here we have a situation where the legal environment has changed; AWS hasn't changed to match; so those companies that chose to rely on a 3rd-party infrastructure provider appear to have made a mistake.

If I had been advising one of those companies, I would have advised them to bring critical infrastructure in-house. But there might have been other options, like using Europe-based infrastructure providers.

I've never been involved with budgets and so on. It's not my concern how much different solutions cost. I just think the principals of companies have a responsibility to avoid third-party risk - which is what you have, if you rely on a third-party for critical company infrastructure.

That's why I was able to persuade my employers to bring their email service in-house. It worked, and the bosses were pleased with the improved service and reliability. We also constructed our own in-house build and deployment train; that worked very nicely too.

Maybe the cost-benefits vary according to the type and size of business. I'm not a researcher, and I only know about the things I've looked into. But my guess is that AWS works well for companies that are after a quick buck (e.g. an IPO).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com