Technology

68131 readers

3327 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

731

Europe is looking for alternatives to US cloud providers (arstechnica.com)

submitted 1 week ago by ForgottenFlux@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

94 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The global backlash against the second Donald Trump administration keeps on growing. Canadians have boycotted US-made products, anti–Elon Musk posters have appeared across London amid widespread Tesla protests, and European officials have drastically increased military spending as US support for Ukraine falters. Dominant US tech services may be the next focus.

There are early signs that some European companies and governments are souring on their use of American cloud services provided by the three so-called hyperscalers. Between them, Google Cloud, Microsoft Azure, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) host vast swathes of the Internet and keep thousands of businesses running. However, some organizations appear to be reconsidering their use of these companies’ cloud services—including servers, storage, and databases—citing uncertainties around privacy and data access fears under the Trump administration.

“There’s a huge appetite in Europe to de-risk or decouple the over-dependence on US tech companies, because there is a concern that they could be weaponized against European interests,” says Marietje Schaake, a nonresident fellow at Stanford’s Cyber Policy Center and a former decadelong member of the European Parliament.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

and Americans stationed in for instance Iraq, were very much monitored.

Um... This was never a secret. Like, at all. All the phones in the phone bank I hit up in the desert there were clearly labeled "Communications on this line can and will be monitored for operational security reasons"

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Was it written on the phone of the people they called?
The claim was that with calls from foreign countries, if it was an American they spoke to, it would not be monitored.
Only foreigners were.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 6 days ago

Was it written on the phone of the people they called?

No, but if they weren't informed, frankly, that's on the SM for not doing so. And honestly, anyone taking a call from a deployed soldier should just understand that reality.

The claim was that with calls from foreign countries, if it was an American they spoke to, it would not be monitored. Only foreigners were.

I'm not going to speak to generalities of whose calls were monitored and shouldn't have been. Solely the item of "Americans stationed in Iraq were monitored", which is, frankly, obviously happening. And every SM was informed as such. And they were instructed to inform their families of that fact.

Every military spouse knew that, if they went to the pre-deployment briefings they were invited to. Every SM knew it. Every contractor knew it, and their families should have also been informed by the contractor.

Hell, even in my state, only one party legally has to know it's being monitored and/or recorded to be legal.