News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Fuck the Cloud (2009) by lmm on Monday December 21, 2015 @05:38PM (#10774075)
Unless you're personally memorizing all the data then you're outsourcing the responsibility somewhere - either you're paying for a service that you hope will be compliant with its specification, or you're paying for hardware that you hope will be compliant with its specification and employees that you hope will be as skilled as they claim to be. There's no way to eliminate the risk entirely, all you can do is take the safest option available. These days that's often the cloud.
Re:Fuck the Cloud (2009) by jacquesm on Monday December 21, 2015 @06:03PM (#10774214)
> These days that's often the cloud.

For plenty of use cases I actually agree with that conclusion. With the caveat that I would add: accompanied by a suitable non-cloud back-up of critical data, code and configuration data held on a medium that is not accessible by the same people that administer the cloud stuff.

Re:Fuck the Cloud (2009) by lmm on Monday December 21, 2015 @06:33PM (#10774418)
I think for most levels of safety you would target, a pure cloud solution is going to be cheaper. E.g. if you decide you need a backup that's independent of your primary cloud provider and any staff with access to that, you can probably accomplish that more cheaply with a second cloud provider than by self-hosting.
Re:Fuck the Cloud (2009) by jacquesm on Monday December 21, 2015 @07:48PM (#10774810)
Yes, a second cloud provider is a valid option, if you take a number of precautions (see elsewhere in this thread).