Podcasts about cloud act

** There are less than 10 tickets remaining for the live recording of Uncommons with Catherine McKenna on Thursday Oct 2nd. Register for free here. **On this two-part episode of Uncommons, Nate digs into Bill C-2 and potential impacts on privacy, data surveillance and sharing with US authorities, and asylum claims and refugee protections.In the first half, Nate is joined by Kate Robertson, senior researcher at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab. Kate's career has spanned criminal prosecutions, regulatory investigations, and international human rights work with the United Nations in Cambodia. She has advocated at every level of court in Canada, clerked at the Supreme Court, and has provided pro bono services through organizations like Human Rights Watch Canada. Her current research at Citizen Lab examines the intersection of technology, privacy, and the law.In part two, Nate is joined by Adam Sadinsky, a Toronto-based immigration and refugee lawyer and co-chair of the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers' Advocacy Committee. Adam has represented clients at every level of court in Canada, including the Supreme Court, and was co-counsel in M.A.A. v. D.E.M.E. (2020 ONCA 486) and Canadian Council for Refugees v. Canada (2023 SCC 17).Further Reading:Unspoken Implications A Preliminary Analysis of Bill C-2 and Canada's Potential Data-Sharing Obligations Towards the United States and Other Countries - Kate Robertson, Citizen LabKate Robertson Chapters:00:00 Introduction & Citizen Lab03:00 Bill C-2 and the Strong Borders Act08:00 Data Sharing and Human Rights Concerns15:00 The Cloud Act & International Agreements22:00 Real-World Examples & Privacy Risks28:00 Parliamentary Process & Fixing the BillAdam Sadinsky Chapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsPart 1: Kate RobertsonNate Erskine-Smith00:00-00:01Kate, thanks for joining me.Kate Robertson00:01-00:01Thanks for having me.Nate Erskine-Smith00:02-00:15So I have had Ron Debert on the podcast before. So for people who really want to go back into the archive, they can learn a little bit about what the Citizen Lab is. But for those who are not that interested, you're a senior researcher there. What is the Citizen Lab?Kate Robertson00:16-01:00Well, it's an interdisciplinary research lab based at University of Toronto. It brings together researchers from a technology standpoint, political science, lawyers like myself and other disciplines to examine the intersection between information and communication technologies, law, human rights, and global security. And over time, it's published human rights reports about some of the controversial and emerging surveillance technologies of our time, including spyware or AI-driven technologies. And it's also really attempted to produce a thoughtful research that helps policymakers navigate some of these challenges and threats.Nate Erskine-Smith01:01-02:50That's a very good lead into this conversation because here we have Bill C-2 coming before Parliament for debate this fall, introduced in June, at the beginning of June. And it's called the Strong Borders Act in short, but it touches, I started counting, it's 15 different acts that are touched by this omnibus legislation. The government has laid out a rationale around strengthening our borders, keeping our borders secure, combating transnational organized crime, stopping the flow of illegal fentanyl, cracking down on money laundering, a litany of things that I think most people would look at and say broadly supportive of stopping these things from happening and making sure we're enhancing our security and the integrity of our immigration system and on. You, though, have provided some pretty thoughtful and detailed rational legal advice around some of the challenges you see in the bill. You're not the only one. There are other challenges on the asylum changes we're making. There are other challenges on lawful access and privacy. You've, though, highlighted, in keeping with the work of the Citizen Lab, the cross-border data sharing, the challenges with those data sharing provisions in the bill. It is a bit of a deep dive and a little wonky, but you've written a preliminary analysis of C2 and Canada's potential data sharing obligations towards the U.S. and other countries, unspoken implications, and you published it mid-June. It is incredibly relevant given the conversation we're having this fall. So if you were to at a high level, and we'll go ahead and some of the weeds, but at a high level articulate the main challenges you see in the legislation from the standpoint that you wrote in unspoken implications. Walk us through them.Kate Robertson02:51-06:15Well, before C2 was tabled for a number of years now, myself and other colleagues at the lab have been studying new and evolving ways that we're seeing law enforcement data sharing and cross-border cooperation mechanisms being put to use in new ways. We have seen within this realm some controversial data sharing frameworks under treaty protocols or bilateral agreement mechanisms with the United States and others, which reshape how information is shared with law enforcement in foreign jurisdictions and what kinds of safeguards and mechanisms are applied to that framework to protect human rights. And I think as a really broad trend, what is probably most, the simplest way to put it is that what we're really seeing is a growing number of ways that borders are actually being exploited to the detriment of human rights standards. Rights are essentially falling through the cracks. This can happen either through cross-border joint investigations between agencies in multiple states in ways that essentially go forum shopping for the laws and the most locks, that's right. You can also see foreign states that seek to leverage cooperation tools in democratic states in order to track, surveil, or potentially even extradite human rights activists and dissidents, journalists that are living in exile outside their borders. And what this has really come out of is a discussion point that has been made really around the world that if crime is going to become more transient across borders, that law enforcement also needs to have a greater freedom to move more seamlessly across borders. But what often is left out of that framing is that human rights standards that are really deeply entrenched in our domestic law systems, they would also need to be concurrently meaningful across borders. And unfortunately, that's not what we're seeing. Canada is going to be facing decisions around this, both within the context of C2 and around it in the coming months and beyond, as we know that it has been considering and in negotiation around a couple of very controversial agreements. One of those, the sort of elephant in the room, so to speak, is that the legislation has been tabled at a time where we know that Canada and the United States have been in negotiations for actually a couple of years around a potential agreement called the CLOUD Act, which would quite literally cede Canada's sovereignty to the United States and law enforcement authorities and give them really a blanket opportunity to directly apply surveillance orders onto entities, both public and private in Canada?Nate Erskine-Smith06:16-07:46Well, so years in the making negotiations, but we are in a very different world with the United States today than we were two years ago. And I was just in, I was in Mexico City for a conference with parliamentarians across the Americas, and there were six Democratic congressmen and women there. One, Chuy Garcia represents Chicago district. He was telling me that he went up to ICE officials and they're masked and he is saying, identify yourself. And he's a congressman. He's saying, identify yourself. What's your ID? What's your badge number? They're hiding their ID and maintaining masks and they're refusing to identify who they are as law enforcement officials, ostensibly refusing to identify who they are to an American congressman. And if they're willing to refuse to identify themselves in that manner to a congressman. I can only imagine what is happening to people who don't have that kind of authority and standing in American life. And that's the context that I see this in now. I would have probably still been troubled to a degree with open data sharing and laxer standards on the human rights side, but all the more troubling, you talk about less democratic jurisdictions and authoritarian regimes. Well, isn't the U.S. itself a challenge today more than ever has been? And then shouldn't we maybe slam the pause button on negotiations like this? Well, you raise a number of really important points. And I think thatKate Robertson07:47-09:54there have been warning signs and worse that have long preceded the current administration and the backsliding that you're commenting upon since the beginning of 2025. Certainly, I spoke about the increasing trend of the exploitation of borders. I mean, I think we're seeing signs that really borders are actually, in essence, being used as a form of punishment, even in some respects, which I would say it is when you say to someone who would potentially exercise due process rights against deportation and say if you exercise those rights, you'll be deported to a different continent from your home country where your rights are perhaps less. And that's something that UN human rights authorities have been raising alarm bells about around the deportation of persons to third countries, potentially where they'll face risks of torture even. But these patterns are all too reminiscent of what we saw in the wake of 9-11 and the creation of black sites where individuals, including Canadian persons, were detained or even tortured. And really, this stems from a number of issues. But what we have identified in analyzing potential cloud agreement is really just the momentous decision that the Canadian government would have to make to concede sovereignty to a country which is in many ways a pariah for refusing to acknowledge extraterritorial international human rights obligations to persons outside of its borders. And so to invite that type of direct surveillance and exercise of authority within Canada's borders was a country who has refused for a very long time, unlike Canada and many other countries around the world, has refused to recognize through its courts and through its government any obligation to protect the international human rights of people in Canada.Nate Erskine-Smith09:56-10:21And yet, you wrote, some of the data and surveillance powers in Bill C-2 read like they could have been drafted by U.S. officials. So you take the frame that you're just articulating around with what the U.S. worldview is on this and has been and exacerbated by obviously the current administration. But I don't love the sound of it reading like it was drafted by AmericanKate Robertson10:22-12:43officials. Well, you know, it's always struck me as a really remarkable story, to be frank. You know, to borrow Dickens' tale of two countries, which is that since the 1990s, Canada's Supreme Court has been charting a fundamentally different course from the constitutional approach that's taken the United States around privacy and surveillance. And it really started with persons looking at what's happening and the way that technology evolves and how much insecurity people feel when they believe that surveillance is happening without any judicial oversight. And looking ahead and saying, you know what, if we take this approach, it's not going to go anywhere good. And that's a really remarkable decision that was made and has continued to be made by the court time and time again, even as recently as last year, the court has said we take a distinct approach from the United States. And it had a lot of foresight given, you know, in the 1990s, technology is nowhere near what it is today. Of course. And yet in the text of C2, we see provisions that, you know, I struggle when I hear proponents of the legislation describe it as balanced and in keeping with the Charter, when actually they're proposing to essentially flip the table on principles that have been enshrined for decades to protect Canadians, including, for example, the notion that third parties like private companies have the authority to voluntarily share our own. information with the police without any warrant. And that's actually the crux of what has become a fundamentally different approach that I think has really led Canada to be a more resilient country when it comes to technological change. And I sometimes describe us as a country that is showing the world that, you know, it's possible to do both. You can judicially supervise investigations that are effective and protect the public. And the sky does not fall if you do so. And right now we're literally seeing and see to something that I think is really unique and important made in Canada approach being potentially put on the chopping block.Nate Erskine-Smith12:44-13:29And for those listening who might think, okay, well, at a high level, I don't love expansive data sharing and reduced human rights protections, but practically, are there examples? And you pointed to in your writing right from the hop, the Arar case, and you mentioned the Supreme Court, but they, you know, they noted that it's a chilling example of the dangers of unconditional information sharing. And the commission noted to the potentially risky exercise of open ended, unconditional data sharing as well. But that's a real life example, a real life Canadian example of what can go wrong in a really horrible, tragic way when you don't have guardrails that focus and protect human rights.Kate Robertson13:31-14:56You're right to raise that example. I raise it. It's a really important one. It's one that is, I think, part of, you know, Canada has many commendable and important features to its framework, but it's not a perfect country by any means. That was an example of just information sharing with the United States itself that led to a Canadian citizen being rendered and tortured in a foreign country. Even a more recent example, we are not the only country that's received requests for cooperation from a foreign state in circumstances where a person's life is quite literally in jeopardy. We have known from public reporting that in the case of Hardeep Najjar, before he was ultimately assassinated on Canadian soil, an Interpol Red Notice had been issued about him at the request of the government of India. And the government had also requested his extradition. And we know that there's a number of important circumstances that have been commented upon by the federal government in the wake of those revelations. And it's provoked a really important discussion around the risks of foreign interference. But it is certainly an example where we know that cooperation requests have been made in respect of someone who's quite literally and tragically at risk of loss of life.Nate Erskine-Smith14:57-16:07And when it comes to the, what we're really talking about is, you mentioned the Cloud Act. There's also, I got to go to the notes because it's so arcane, but the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. These are, in that case, it's a treaty that Canada would ratify. And then this piece of legislation would in some way create implementing authorities for. I didn't fully appreciate this until going through that. And I'd be interested in your thoughts just in terms of the details of these. And we can make it as wonky as you like in terms of the challenges that these treaties offer. I think you've already articulated the watering down of traditional human rights protections and privacy protections we would understand in Canadian law. But the transparency piece, I didn't fully appreciate either. And as a parliamentarian, I probably should have because there's... Until reading your paper, I didn't know that there was a policy on tabling of treaties That really directs a process for introducing treaty implementing legislation. And this process also gets that entirely backwards.Kate Robertson16:09-17:01That's right. And, you know, in researching and studying what to do with, you know, what I foresee is potentially quite a mess if we were to enter into a treaty that binds us to standards that are unconstitutional. You know, that is a diplomatic nightmare of sorts, but it's also one that would create, you know, a constitutional entanglement of that's really, I think, unprecedented in Canada. But nevertheless, that problem is foreseen if one or both of these were to go ahead. And I refer to that in the cloud agreement or the 2AP. But this policy, as I understand it, I believe it was tabled by then Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier, as he was at the time, by Prime Minister Harper's government.Nate Erskine-Smith17:02-17:04He's come a long way.Kate Robertson17:07-18:12I believe that the rationale for the policy was quite self-evident at the time. I mean, if you think about the discussions that are happening right now, for example, in Quebec around digital sovereignty and the types of entanglements that U.S. legal process might impact around Quebec privacy legislation. Other issues around the AI space in Ontario or our health sector in terms of technology companies in Ontario. These treaties really have profound implications at a much broader scale than the federal government and law enforcement. And that's not even getting to Indigenous sovereignty issues. And so the policy is really trying to give a greater voice to the range of perspectives that a federal government would consider before binding Canada internationally on behalf of all of these layers of decision making without perhaps even consulting with Parliament First.Nate Erskine-Smith18:12-19:15So this is, I guess, one struggle. There's the specific concerns around watering down protections, but just on process. This just bothered me in particular because we're going to undergo this process in the fall. And so I printed out the Strong Borders Act, Government of Canada Strengthens Border Security and the backgrounder to the law. And going through it, it's six pages when I print it out. And it doesn't make mention of the Budapest Convention. It doesn't make mention of the Cloud Act. It doesn't make mention of any number of rationales for this legislation. But it doesn't make mention that this is in part, at least, to help implement treaties that are under active negotiation. not only gets backwards the policy, but one would have thought, especially I took from your paper, that the Department has subsequently, the Justice Department has subsequently acknowledged that this would in fact help the government implement these treaties. So surely it shouldKate Robertson19:15-19:57be in the background. I would have thought so. As someone that has been studying these treaty frameworks very carefully, it was immediately apparent to me that they're at least relevant. It was put in the briefing as a question as to whether or not the actual intent of some of these new proposed powers is to put Canada in a position to ratify this treaty. And the answer at that time was yes, that that is the intent of them. And it was also stated that other cooperation frameworks were foreseeable.Nate Erskine-Smith19:59-20:57What next? So here I am, one member of parliament, and oftentimes through these processes, we're going to, there's the objective of the bill, and then there's the details of the bill, and we're going to get this bill to a committee process. I understand the intention is for it to be a pretty fulsome committee hearing, and it's an omnibus bill. So what should happen is the asylum components should get kicked to the immigration committee. The pieces around national security should obviously get kicked to public safety committee, and there should be different committees that deal with their different constituent elements that are relevant to those committees. I don't know if it will work that way, but that would be a more rational way of engaging with a really broad ranging bill. Is there a fix for this though? So are there amendments that could cure it or is it foundationally a problem that is incurable?Kate Robertson20:58-21:59Well, I mean, I think that for myself as someone studying this area, it's obvious to me that what agreements may be struck would profoundly alter the implications of pretty much every aspect of this legislation. And that stems in part from just how fundamental it would be if Canada were to cede its sovereignty to US law enforcement agencies and potentially even national security agencies as well. But obviously, the provisions themselves are quite relevant to these frameworks. And so it's clear that Parliament needs to have the opportunity to study how these provisions would actually be used. And I am still left on knowing how that would be possible without transparencyNate Erskine-Smith22:00-22:05about what is at stake in terms of potential agreements. Right. What have we agreed to? If thisKate Robertson22:05-24:57is implementing legislation what are we implementing certainly it's a significantly different proposition now even parking the international data sharing context the constitutional issues that are raised in the parts of the bill that i'm able to study within my realm of expertise which is in the context of omnibus legislation not the entire bill of course yeah um but it's hard to even know where to begin um the the the powers that are being put forward you know i kind of have to set the table a bit to understand to explain why the table is being flipped yeah yeah we're at a time where um you know a number of years ago i published about the growing use of algorithms and AI and surveillance systems in Canada and gaps in the law and the need to bring Canada's oversight into the 21st century. Those gaps now, even five years later, are growing into chasms. And we've also had multiple investigative reports by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada being sent to Parliament about difficulties it's had reviewing the activities of law enforcement agencies, difficulties it's had with private sector companies who've been non-compliant with privacy legislation, and cooperating at all with the regulator. And we now have powers being put forward that would essentially say, for greater certainty, it's finders keepers rules. Anything in the public domain can be obtained and used by police without warrant. And while this has been put forward as a balancing of constitutional norms, the Supreme Court has said the opposite. It's not an all or nothing field. And in the context of commercial data brokers that are harvesting and selling our data, including mental health care that we might seek online, AI-fueled surveillance tools that are otherwise unchecked in the Canadian domain. I think this is a frankly stunning response to the context of the threats that we face. And I really think it sends and creates really problematic questions around what law enforcement and other government agencies are expected to do in the context of future privacy reviews when essentially everything that's been happening is supposedly being green lit with this new completely un-nuanced power. I should note you are certainly not alone in theseNate Erskine-Smith24:57-27:07concerns. I mean, in addition to the paper that I was talking about at the outset that you've written as an analyst that alongside Ron Deaver in the Citizen Lab. But there's another open letter you've signed that's called for the withdrawal of C2, but it's led by open media. I mean, BCCLA, British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, QP, International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Penn Canada, the Center for Free Expression, privacy experts like Colin Bennett, who I used be on the Privacy Committee and that were pretty regular witnesses. You mentioned the Privacy Commissioner has not signed the open letter, but the Privacy Commissioner of both Canada and the Information Commissioner of Ontario, who's also responsible for privacy. In the context of the treaties that you were mentioning, the Budapest Convention in particular, they had highlighted concerns absent updated, modernized legislation. And at the federal level, we have had in fits and starts attempts to modernize our private sector privacy legislation. But apart from a consultation paper at one point around the Privacy Act, which would apply to public sector organizations, there's really been no serious effort to table legislation or otherwise modernize that. So am I right to say, you know, we are creating a myriad number of problems with respect to watering down privacy and human rights protections domestically and especially in relation to foreign governments with relation to data of our citizens here. And we could potentially cure those problems, at least in part, if we modernize our privacy legislation and our privacy protections and human rights protections here at home. But we are, as you say, a gap to chasm. We are so woefully behind in that conversation. It's a bit of an odd thing to pass the open-ended data sharing and surveillance piece before you even have a conversation around updating your privacy protections.Kate Robertson27:07-28:13Yeah, I mean, frankly, odd, I would use the word irresponsible. We know that these tools, it's becoming increasingly well documented how impactful they are for communities and individuals, whether it's wrongful arrests, whether it's discriminatory algorithms. really fraught tools to say the least. And it's not as if Parliament does not have a critical role here. You know, in decades past, to use the example of surveillance within Quebec, which was ultimately found to have involved, you know, years of illegal activity and surveillance activities focused on political organizing in Quebec. And that led to Parliament striking an inquiry and ultimately overhauling the mandate of the RCMP. There were recommendations made that the RCMP needs to follow the law. That was an actual recommendation.Nate Erskine-Smith28:14-28:16I'm sorry that it needs to be said, but yeah.Kate Robertson28:16-29:05The safeguards around surveillance are about ensuring that when we use these powers, they're being used appropriately. And, you know, there isn't even, frankly, a guarantee that judicial oversight will enable this to happen. And it certainly provides comfort to many Canadians. But we know, for example, that there were phones being watched of journalists in Montreal with, unfortunately, judicial oversight not even that many years ago. So this is something that certainly is capable of leading to more abuses in Canada around political speech and online activity. And it's something that we need to be protective against and forward thinking about.Nate Erskine-Smith29:05-29:58Yeah, and the conversation has to hold at the same time considerations of public safety, of course, but also considerations for due process and privacy and human rights protections. These things, we have to do both. If we don't do both, then we're not the democratic society we hold ourselves out as. I said odd, you said irresponsible. You were forceful in your commentary, but the open letter that had a number of civil society organizations, I mentioned a few, was pretty clear to say the proposed legislation reflects little more than shameful appeasement of the dangerous rhetoric and false claims about our country emanating from the United States. It's a multi-pronged assault on the basic human rights and freedoms Canada holds dear. Got anything else to add?Kate Robertson30:00-30:56I mean, the elephant in the room is the context in which the legislation has been tabled within. And I do think that we're at a time where we are seeing democratic backsliding around the world, of course, and rising digital authoritarianism. And these standards really don't come out of the air. They're ones that need to be protected. And I do find myself, when I look at some of the really un-nuanced powers that are being put forward, I do find myself asking whether or not those risks are really front and center when we're proposing to move forward in this way. And I can only defer to experts from, as you said, hundreds of organizations that have called attention towards pretty much every aspect of this legislation.Nate Erskine-Smith30:57-31:44And I will have the benefit of engaging folks on the privacy side around lawful access and around concerns around changes to the asylum claim and due process from the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. But as we do see this move its way through Parliament, if we see it move its way through Parliament in the fall, if they're recognizing that the call was for withdrawal, but also recognizing a political reality where if it is to pass, we want to make sure we are improving it as much as possible. If there are amendments along the way, if there are other people you think that I should engage with, please do let me know because this is before us. It's an important piece of legislation. And if it's not to be withdrawn, we better improve it as much as possible.Kate Robertson31:46-32:02I appreciate that offer and really commend you for covering the issue carefully. And I really look forward to more engagement from yourself and other colleagues in parliament as legislation is considered further. I expect you will be a witness at committee,Nate Erskine-Smith32:02-32:06but thanks very much for the time. I really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.Part 2: Adam SadinskyChapters:33:33 Concerns Over Asylum Eligibility in Canada36:30 Government Goals and Fairness for Refugee Claimants39:00 Changing Country Conditions and New Risks41:30 The Niagara Falls Example & Other Unfair Exclusions44:00 Frivolous vs. Legitimate Claims in the Refugee System47:00 Clearing the Backlog with Fair Pathways50:00 Broad Powers Granted to the Government52:00 Privacy Concerns and Closing ReflectionsNate Erskine-Smith33:33-33:35Adam, thanks for joining me.Adam Sadinsky33:35-33:36Thanks for having me, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith33:36-33:57We've had a brief discussion about this, by way of my role as an MP, but, for those who are listening in, they'll have just heard a rundown of all the concerns that the Citizen Lab has with data surveillance and data sharing with law enforcement around the world. You've got different concerns about C2 and you represent the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers. What are your concerns here?Adam Sadinsky33:57-35:31I mean, our biggest concern with this bill is new provisions that create additional categories of folks ineligible to claim asylum in Canada. And specifically to have their hearings heard at the Immigration and Refugee Board. The biggest one of those categories is definitely, a bar on individuals making refugee claims in Canada one year after they have arrived in Canada, and that's one year, whether they have been in Canada for that whole year or they left at some point and came back. Those folks who have been here, who came more than a year ago, if they now fear persecution and want to make a claim for refugee protection, this bill would shunt them into an inferior system where rather than having a full hearing in their day in court.Their application will be decided by an officer of immigration, alone, sitting in the cubicle, probably, with some papers in front of them. That person is going to make an enormous decision about whether to send that person back home where they feared persecution, torture, death. Our position is that this new form of ineligibility. Is unfair. it doesn't meet the government's goals, as we understand them, and we share, we share the views of organizations like, Citizen Lab, that the bill should be withdrawn. There are other ways to do this, but this bill is fundamentally flawed.Nate Erskine-Smith35:31-35:57Let's talk about government goals. Those looking at the influx of temporary residents in Canada specifically, and I don't, and I don't wanna pick on international students, but we've seen a huge influx of international students just as one category example. And they've said, well, if someone's been here for a year and they didn't claim right away, they didn't come here to claim asylum. Because they would've claimed within that first year, presumably, you know, what's the problem with, uh, with a rule that is really trying to tackle this problem.Adam Sadinsky35:57-38:33The issue is, I mean, Nate, you had mentioned, you know, people who had come to Canada, they didn't initially claim and it didn't initially claim asylum, temporary residents. What do we do about it? I wanna give a couple of examples of people who would be caught by this provision, who fall into that category. But there's legitimate reasons why they might claim more than a year after arriving in Canada. The first is someone who came to Canada, student worker, whatever. At the time they came to Canada, they would've been safe going back home they didn't have a fear of returning back home. But country conditions change and they can change quickly. The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in 2021, was a stark example there may have been people who came to Canada as students planning to go back to Afghanistan and rebuild their country. As the bill is currently written. If there were to be a situation like that, and there will be some other Afghanistan, there will be some other situation down the line. Those people who weren't afraid when they originally came to Canada and now have a legitimate claim, will have an inferior, process that they go through, one that is riddled with issues, examples of unfairness compared to the refugee, the regular refugee system, and a lack of protection from deportation, pending any appeal.So that's one category. A second category is people who were afraid of going back home when they came to Canada but didn't need to claim asylum because they had another avenue to remain in Canada. So the government advertised, Minister Frazier was saying this often come to Canada, come as a student and there's a well-established pathway. You'll have a study permit, you'll get a post-graduation work permit. This is what the government wanted. The rug has been pulled out from under many of those people. Towards the end of last year when Canada said, okay, it's enough, too many temporary residents. But what about the temporary residents who had a fear of returning home when they came? They went through the system the “right way,” quote unquote. They didn't go to the asylum system. they went through another path. And now they're looking at it. They say, well, you know, I came to Canada to study, but also I'm gay and I'm from a country where, if people know about that, you know, I'll be tortured. Maybe since they've been in Canada, that person in that example, they've been in a relationship, they've been posting on social media with their partner. It is very dangerous so why, why shouldn't that person claim refugee protection through regular means?Nate Erskine-Smith38:33-39:06Is this right on your read of the law as it is written right now, if someone were to come with their family when they're a kid and they were to be in Canada for over a year and then their family were to move back to either the home country or to a different country, and, they wake up as a teenager many years later, they wake up as an adult many years later and their country's falling apart, and they were to flee and come to Canada. By virtue of the fact they've been here for a year as a kid, would that preclude them from making a claim?Adam Sadinsky39:06-39:10It's even worse than that, Nate.Nate Erskine-Smith39:09-39:10Oh, great.Adam Sadinsky39:10-39:47In your example, the family stayed in Canada for more than a year. Yes, absolutely. That person is caught by this provision. But here's who else would be someone comes when they're five years old with their family, on a trip to the United States. during that trip, they decide we want to see the Canadian side of Niagara Falls. They either have a visa or get whatever visa they need, or don't need one. They visit the falls, and at that point that they enter Canada, a clock starts ticking. That never stops ticking. So maybe they came to Canada for two hours.Nate Erskine-Smith39:44-39:45Two hours and you're outta luck.Adam Sadinsky39:45-39:47They go back to the USNate Erskine-Smith39:47-39:47Oh man.Adam Sadinsky39:47-40:09They never come back to Canada again. The way that the bill is written, that clock never stops ticking, right? Their country falls apart. They come back 15 years later. That person is going to have a very different kind of process that they go through, to get protection in Canada, than someone who wouldn't be caught by this bill.Nate Erskine-Smith40:09-40:34Say those are the facts as they are, that's one category. There's another category where I've come as a student, I thought there would be a pathway. I don't really fear persecution in my home country, but I want to stay in Canada we see in this constituency office, as other constituency offices do people come with immigration help or they've got legitimate claims. We see some people come with help with illegitimate claimsAdam Sadinsky40:34-42:46We have to be very careful when we talk about categorizing claims as frivolous. There is no question people make refugee claims in Canada that have no merit. You'll not hear from me, you'll not hear from our organization saying that every 100% of refugee claims made in Canada, are with merit. The issue is how we determine. At that initial stage that you're saying, oh, let's, let's deal quickly with frivolous claims. How do you determine if a claim is frivolous? What if someone, you know, I do a lot of appeal work, we get appeals of claims prepared by immigration consultants, or not even immigration consultants. And, you know, there's a core of a very strong refugee claim there that wasn't prepared properly.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-42:46Yeah, we see it too. That's a good point.Adam Sadinsky42:46-42:46How that claim was prepared has nothing to do with what the person actually faces back home. We have to be very careful in terms of, quick negative claims, and clearing the decks of what some might think are frivolous claims. But there may be some legitimate and very strong core there. What could be done, and you alluded to this, is there are significant claims in the refugee board's backlog that are very, very strong just based on the countries they come from or the profiles of the individuals who have made those claims, where there are countries that have 99% success rate. And that's not because the board is super generous. It's because the conditions in those countries are very, very bad. And so the government could implement policies and this would be done without legislation to grant pathways for folks from, for example, Eritrea 99ish percent success rate. However, the government wants to deal with that in terms of numbers, but there's no need for the board to spend time determining whether this claim is in the 1%, that doesn't deserve to be accepted. Our view is that 1% being accepted is, a trade off for, a more efficient system.Nate Erskine-Smith42:46-43:30Similarly though, individuals who come into my office and they've been here for more than five years. They have been strong contributors to the community. They have jobs. They're oftentimes connected to a faith organization. They're certainly connected to a community based organization that is going to bat for them. There's, you know, obviously no criminal record in many cases they have other family here. And they've gone through so many appeals at different times. I look at that and I go, throughout Canadian history, there have been different regularization programs. Couldn't you kick a ton of people not a country specific basis, but a category specific basis of over five years, economic contributions, community contributions, no criminal record, you're approved.Adam Sadinsky43:30-44:20Yeah, I'd add to your list of categories, folks who are working in, professions, that Canada needs workers in. give the example of construction. We are facing a housing crisis. So many construction workers are not Canadian. Many of my clients who are refugee claimants waiting for their hearings are working in the construction industry. And the government did that, back in the COVID pandemic, creating what was, what became known as the Guardian Angels Program, where folks who were working in the healthcare sector, on the front lines, combating the pandemic, supporting, folks who needed it, that they were allowed to be taken again out of the refugee queue with a designated, pathway to permanent residents on the basis of the work and the contribution they were doing. All of these could be done.Adam Sadinsky44:20-45:05The refugee system is built on Canada's international obligations under the refugee convention, to claim refugee protection, to claim asylum is a human right. Every person in the world has the right to claim asylum. Individuals who are claiming asylum in Canada are exercising that right. Each individual has their own claim, and that's the real value that the refugee board brings to bear and why Canada has had a gold standard. The refugee system, replicated, around the world, every individual has their day in court, to explain to an expert tribunal why they face persecution. This bill would take that away.Nate Erskine-Smith45:05-46:18Yeah, I can't put my finger on what the other rationale would be though, because why the, why this change now? Well, we have right now, a huge number over a million people who are going to eventually be without status because they're not gonna have a pathway that was originally, that they originally thought would be there. The one frustration I have sometimes in the system is there are people who have come into my office with, the original claim, being unfounded. But then I look at it, and they've been here partly because the process took so long, they've been here for over five years. If you've been here for over five years and you're contributing and you're a member of the community, and now we're gonna kick you out. Like your original claim might have been unfounded, but this is insane. Now you're contributing to this country, and what a broken system. So I guess I'm sympathetic to the need for speed at the front end to ensure that unfounded claims are deemed unfounded and people are deported and legitimate claims are deemed founded, and they can be welcomed. So cases don't continue to come into my office that are over five or over six years long where I go, I don't even care if it was originally unfounded or not. Welcome to Canada. You've been contributing here for six years anyway.Adam Sadinsky46:18-46:33But if I can interject? Even if the bill passes as written, each of these individuals is still going to have what's called a pre-removal risk assessment.Nate Erskine-Smith46:31-46:33They're still gonna have a process. Yeah, exactly.Adam Sadinsky46:33-46:55They're still gonna have a process, and they're still going to wait time. All these people are still in the system. The bill is a bit of a shell game where folks are being just transferred from one process to another and say, oh, wow. Great. Look, we've reduced the backlog at the IRB by however many thousand claims,Nate Erskine-Smith46:53-46:55And we've increased the backlog in the process.Adam Sadinsky46:55-48:25Oh, look at the wait time at IRCC, and I'm sure you have constituents who come into your office and say, I filed a spousal sponsorship application two and a half years ago. I'm waiting for my spouse to come and it's taking so long. IRCC is not immune from processing delays. There doesn't seem to be, along with this bill, a corresponding hiring of hundreds and hundreds more pro officers. So, this backlog and this number of claims is shifting from one place to another. And another point I mentioned earlier within the refugee system within the board, when a person appeals a negative decision, right? Because, humans make decisions and humans make mistakes. And that's why we have legislative appeal processes in the system to allow for mistakes to be corrected. That appeal process happens within the board, and a person is protected from deportation while they're appealing with a pro. With this other system, it's different. The moment that an officer makes a negative decision on a pro that person is now eligible to be deported. CBSA can ask them to show up the next day and get on a plane and go home. Yes, a person can apply for judicial review in the federal court that does not stop their deportation. If they can bring a motion to the court for a stay of removal.Nate Erskine-Smith48:19-48:25You're gonna see a ton of new work for the federal court. You are gonna see double the work for the federal courtAdam Sadinsky48:25-48:39Which is already overburdened. So unless the government is also appointing many, many new judges, and probably hiring more Council Department of Justice, this backlog is going to move from one place to another.Nate Erskine-Smith48:39-48:41It's just gonna be industry whack-a-mole with the backlog.Adam Sadinsky48:41-48:52The only way to clear the backlog is to clear people out of it. There's no fair way to clear folks out of it in a negative way. So the only way to do that is positively.Nate Erskine-Smith48:52-49:37In the limited time we got left, the bill also empowers the governor and council of the cabinet to cancel documents, to suspend documents. And just so I've got this clearer in my mind, so if, for example: say one is a say, one is a student on campus, or say one is on a, on a work permit and one is involved in a protest, and that protest the government deems to be something they don't like. The government could cancel the student's permit on the basis that they were involved in the protest. Is that right? The law? Not to say that this government would do that. But this would allow the government to legally do just that. Am I reading it wrong?Adam Sadinsky49:37-50:46The bill gives broad powers to the government to cancel documents. I think you're reading it correctly. To me, when I read the bill, I don't particularly understand exactly what is envisioned. Where it would, where the government would do this, why a government would want to put this in. But you are right. I would hope this government would not do that, but this government is not going to be in power forever. When you put laws on the books, they can be used by whomever for whatever reason they can they want, that's within how that law is drafted. You know, we saw down south, you know, the secretary of State a few months ago said, okay, we're gonna cancel the permits of everyone from South Sudan, in the US because they're not taking back people being deported. It's hugely problematic. It's a complete overreach. It seems like there could be regulations that are brought in. But the power is so broad as written in this law, that it could definitely be used, for purposes most Canadians would not support.Nate Erskine-Smith50:46-51:07And, obviously that's a worst case scenario when we think about the United States in today's political climate. But, it's not clear to your point what the powers are necessary for. If we are to provide additional powers, we should only provide power as much as necessary and proportionate to the goal we want to achieve. Is there anything else you want to add?Adam Sadinsky51:07-51:43I just wanna touch, and I'm sure you got into a lot of these issues, on the privacy side but. The privacy issues in this bill bleed over into the refugee system with broad search powers, um, particularly requiring service providers to provide information, we are concerned these powers could be used by CBSA, for example, to ask a women's shelter, to hand over information about a woman claiming refugee protection or who's undocumented, living in a shelter, we have huge concerns that, you know, these powers will not just be used by police, but also by Canada Border Services and immigration enforcement. I'm not the expert on privacy issues, but we see it we see the specter of those issues as well.Nate Erskine-Smith51:43-52:22That's all the time we got, but in terms of what would help me to inform my own advocacy going forward is, this bill is gonna get to committee. I'm gonna support the bill in committee and see if we can amend it. I know, the position of CARL is withdraw. The position of a number of civil society organizations is to withdraw it. I think it's constructive to have your voice and others at committee, and to make the same arguments you made today with me. Where you have. I know your argument's gonna be withdrawn, you'll say then in the alternative, here are changes that should be made. When you've got a list of those changes in detailed, legislative amendment form, flip them to me and I'll share the ideas around the ministry and around with colleagues, and I appreciate the time. Appreciate the advocacy.Adam Sadinsky52:22-52:24Absolutely. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.uncommons.ca

Peut-on concilier innovation de pointe et souveraineté technologique ? Alors que les utilisateurs européens exigent des performances égales aux solutions américaines, les acteurs de la souveraineté numérique doivent relever un défi technique majeur : créer des alternatives crédibles sans compromettre l'excellence. Alexia Gaudron de ChapsVision partage les secrets de cette équation complexe.L'épisode explore les multiples facettes de cette transformation : l'impact des politiques publiques et du programme France 2030, les stratégies de R&D et d'acquisitions pour construire un écosystème technologique complet, les partenariats européens pour mutualiser les efforts, et les approches "privacy by design".

Wie sicher sind unsere Daten wirklich – und wer hat am Ende Zugriff darauf?In dieser Folge von MY DATA IS BETTER THAN YOURS spricht Host Jonas Rashedi mit Nina-Sophie Sczepurek, Co-Founder & COO bei leitzcloud by vBoxx, über Datensouveränität, Cybersicherheit und die strategische Bedeutung von Cloud-Architekturen. Nina erklärt, wie US-Gesetze wie der Cloud Act selbst auf Server in Europa wirken, warum Schleswig-Holstein und Dänemark auf europäische Cloud-Lösungen umsteigen wollen und wie neue EU-Gesetze wie der Cyber Resilience Act Unternehmen zu mehr Sicherheit verpflichten.Besonders praxisnah wird es, wenn sie von Projekten berichtet, in denen Unternehmen sensible Daten wie HR- oder Finanzinformationen bewusst in separate, europäische Clouds auslagern – oder gleich ganze private Cloud-Infrastrukturen aufbauen. Das Gespräch zeigt, wie eng technologische Entscheidungen mit geopolitischen Entwicklungen verwoben sind. Es geht um Vertrauen in Technologie, die Rolle von Multi-Cloud-Strategien und darum, warum Sensibilisierung und Transparenz entscheidend sind. MY DATA IS BETTER THAN YOURS ist ein Projekt von BETTER THAN YOURS, der Marke für richtig gute Podcasts. Zum LinkedIn-Profil von Nina: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nina-sophie-sczepurek/?locale=de_DE Zur Webseite von leitzcloud by vBoxx: https://leitzcloud.eu/ Zu allen wichtigen Links rund um Jonas und den Podcast: https://linktr.ee/jonas.rashedi 00:00 Intro und Begrüßung 02:02 Vorstellung Nina 04:32 Was bedeutet Datensouveränität? 06:47 Politische Rahmenbedingungen und Cloud Act 10:12 Risiken außereuropäischer Anbieter 14:18 Europas Potenzial und erste Schritte 15:47 Neue Cybersicherheitsgesetze 18:56 B2B-Sensibilisierung 22:16 Strategisches Datenmanagement 27:21 Multi-Cloud-Strategien 30:37 Vertrauen in Technologie 33:00 Praxisbeispiele aus Projekten 37:25 Blick in die Zukunft 38:19 Persönlicher Umgang mit Daten

I remember the court case years ago when the US government wanted to access data in Azure that was physically stored in Ireland. I wrote lightly about this and linked to the article back in 2020. This has typically been more of a concern for the EU (and other countries) than the US, but I'm sure there are organizations in the US that use the cloud and don't want their data accessed by other countries' governments. Recently, a Microsoft executive was asked about this in the French Senate. The Microsoft response was that they  (Microsoft) cannot guarantee data sovereignty for French customers. If the US government served a warrant under the Cloud Act, a US corporation would have to turn over the data. Read the rest of Data Sovereignty in the Cloud

Et si, du jour au lendemain, un conflit suffisait à couper l'accès à vos données ? La souveraineté numérique, c'est la capacité d'un pays à garder le contrôle de ses infrastructures, de ses technologies et des informations qui y circulent. Un enjeu crucial pour la France et l'Europe.

Digitale Souveränität ist in aller Munde – doch was bedeutet sie wirklich für Ihr Unternehmen? In dieser Episode sprechen wir mit unserem Podcast-Gast René Büst, Senior Research Director bei Gartner, über die komplexe Beziehung zwischen digitaler Souveränität, Innovation und den tatsächlichen Kosten für Unternehmen. Außerdem erklärt Büst, warum auch Open Source ein Ansatz ist, um einen sehr hohen Grad an Souveränität und Unabhängigkeit zu erlangen.

Arash Attar-Rezvani - M&A Partner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Arash Attar-Rezvani, M&A Partner at Skadden based in Paris, brings over two decades of cross-border M&A strategy experience to this in-depth conversation. From billion-dollar telecom deals across Latin America to luxury brand acquisitions spanning multiple jurisdictions, Arash reveals the hidden complexities that make international M&A uniquely challenging. M&A professionals will learn how to structure deals across incompatible legal systems, navigate emerging regulatory landscapes, and build the trust essential for successful cross-border transactions. Things you will learn: How to identify and manage multiple antitrust and national security clearances across jurisdictions with varying sophistication levels Why smaller transactions often require more innovation than billion-dollar deals, and how to build structures when no legal playbook exists The psychology behind cross-border deal-making and why trust trumps even the most ironclad contracts _________________ How One Small M&A Team is Closing 8 Deals This Year See how US Heart & Vascular is running faster, cleaner deals using Buyer-Led M&A™ and DealRoom. Join Kison in the live session on August 14 at 11am EST.

AWS Morning Brief for the week of July 28th, 2025, with Corey Quinn. Links:Launching Amazon CloudWatch generative AI observability (Preview) Amazon CloudWatch adds IPv6 supportBoost cold-start recommendations with vLLM on AWS Trainium AWS Private CA now supports issuing up to 100 million certificates per CA Amazon Connect announces per-day pricing for external voice connectors Amazon RDS for Db2 adds support for group-based authorization with self-managed Active Directory Manage multi-tenant Amazon Bedrock costs using application inference profilesSimplify serverless development with console to IDE and remote debugging for AWS Lambda | AWS News Blog AWS Generative AI for Developers Professional Certificate Simplify AWS Organization Tag Policies using new wildcard statement  Security Update for Amazon Q Developer Extension for Visual Studio Code (Version #1.84) Cost Optimization Hub now supports account names in optimization opportunities Year One of Valkey: Open-Source Innovations and ElastiCache version 8.1 for Valkey - go listen to the audio version of this newsletter specifically for this item. AWS Security Incident Response: The customer's journey to accelerating the incident response lifecycle AWS Service Reference Information now supports actions for last accessed services - Five facts about how the CLOUD Act actually works | AWS Security Blog Bob's Used Books: Build a .NET Serverless Application on AWS, Part 1: Deployment and Setup Amazon EC2 now supports skipping the operating system shutdown when stopping or terminating instances New whitepaper available: AICPA SOC 2 Compliance Guide on AWS Why 2025 is the Inflection Point for AWS Cloud Migration Beyond IAM access keys: Modern authentication approaches for AWS Introducing SRA Verify – an AWS Security Reference Architecture assessment tool Supercharging Ad Creative with Amazon Bedrock and Amazon Nova: How AI is Revolutionizing Content Generation for Advertising & Marketing Use-CasesBuilding resilient multi-tenant systems with Amazon SQS fair queues How Truth For Life transformed its viewer analytics while optimizing costs

Die Sommerflaute nutzen die beiden Hosts für einen bunten Ritt durch die Datenschutzwelt. Holger und Joerg Heidrich präsentieren in Episode 139 ihre persönliche Auswahl aktueller Fälle und Entwicklungen. Den Auftakt macht das obligatorische "Bußgeld der Woche", diesmal aus Italien: Die Autostrade per l'Italia muss 420.000 Euro zahlen, weil sie private Facebook-Posts und WhatsApp-Nachrichten einer Mitarbeiterin für ein Disziplinarverfahren verwendet hatte. Die italienische Datenschutzbehörde Garante betont, dass online verfügbare Daten nicht automatisch für jeden Zweck genutzt werden dürfen. Die Behörde sah darin einen Verstoß gegen die Zweckbindung personenbezogener Daten. Holger und Joerg diskutieren, ob zumindest öffentliche Social-Media-Posts tatsächlich nicht für andere Zwecke verwendet werden dürfen. Einiges Rumoren in der Datenschutz-Community erzeugt ein Urteil des Landgerichts (LG) Leipzig: 5000 Euro Schadensersatz sprach es einem Nutzer zu, der sich von den Meta-Business-Tools im Web überwacht fühlt. Viele Website-Betreiber nutzen diese Tools, etwa in form von Social-Plug-ins. Meta könne damit allerdings "jeden Nutzer zu jeder Zeit individuell erkennbar [machen], sobald er sich auf Drittwebseiten bewegt oder eine App benutzt hat, auch wenn er sich nicht über den Instagram- oder Facebook-Account angemeldet hat", so das Gericht. Die Höhe des Schmerzensgeldes nach Art. 82 DSGVO müsse demnach über die in der nationalen Rechtsprechungspraxis etablierten Beträge hinausgehen. Das Gericht sieht eine systematische Überwachung und spricht von einem Signal gegen Meta. Die Hosts zeigen sich überrascht von der Höhe des Schadensersatzes, der ohne konkrete Schadensdarlegung allein auf Basis eines "Überwachungsgefühls" zugesprochen wurde. Dies könne für Meta tatsächlich gravierende Folgen haben, wenn sich die Ansicht des LG Leipzig an anderen Gerichten durchsetzen sollte. Derweil gerät Microsoft in Erklärungsnot: Nachdem der Konzern vollmundig eine undurchlässige "EU Data Boundary" für der Kundschaft in der EU versprochen hatte, räumte der französische Chefjustiziar nun ein, dass US-Behörden über den Cloud Act weiterhin auf europäische Kundendaten zugreifen können. Holger zeigt sich wenig überrascht, aber verärgert über die irreführenden Versprechen. Ein weiteres Mal stehe die Glaubwürdigkeit von Datenschutzversprechen großer US-Tech-Konzerne in Frage. Die Hosts widmen sich außerdem einem viralen Privacy-Desaster: Bei einem Konzert der Popband Coldplay wurden zwei Personen von der "Kiss Cam" in einer intimen Situation erfasst. Als die beiden sich selbst auf der Leinwand im Saal erkannten, schlug die Frau die Hände vors Gesicht, der Mann ging in die Hocke und versteckte sich. Das Video verbreitete sich rasant im Netz, die Betroffenen wurden identifiziert und öffentlich bloßgestellt, mit schwerwiegenden persönlichen Konsequenzen. Unbeteiligte mit ähnlichen Namen gerieten ins Visier des Internet-Mobs. Bleich findet das "eklig" und kritisiert die Post-Privacy-Gesellschaft scharf. Joerg erläutert anhand des Beispiels überdies die rechtlichen Aspekte solcher Aufnahmen bei Großveranstaltungen. Als Ferienlektüre empfiehlt Holger zuguterletzt den aktuellen Tätigkeitsbericht des Katholischen Datenschutzzentrums (siehe Shownotes) - mit skurrilen Fällen wie falsch etikettierten Plazenten und datenschutzrechtlichen Fragen bei Teufelsaustreibungen.

The EU cloud exit movement is reshaping how European organizations think about data storage and sovereignty. Companies across Europe are moving away from US-based cloud providers like Microsoft 365, AWS, and Google Workspace due to concerns about the Cloud Act and data privacy regulations.In this episode, Curtis and Prasanna explore the backup implications of this major shift. They discuss the challenges of replacing comprehensive platforms like Microsoft 365 with multiple EU-based providers, the complexities of bringing services back in-house, and why the 3-2-1 backup rule becomes even more critical during these transitions.Whether organizations choose local providers or decide to self-host their infrastructure, data protection remains paramount. The hosts share real-world examples of failed backup strategies, including the Rackspace Exchange disaster and OVH's data center fire, to illustrate why third-party backup solutions are necessary regardless of your hosting choice.

In deze diepgaande aflevering van Techzine Talks duiken Coen en Erik in de complexe wereld van sovereign cloud oplossingen. Ze ontleden hoe Microsoft, Google Cloud en AWS vergelijkbare beloftes doen over datasoevereiniteit en onderzoeken de cruciale vraag: kan Europa wel zonder deze Amerikaanse hyperscalers? De podcast biedt een kritische analyse van datacenters, encryptie-oplossingen, key-management, confidential computing, Europese partners en personeel, maar ook de praktische en financiële uitdagingen van een echt Europees cloud-alternatief.Aanleiding voor deze discussie was een Microsoft AI-event waar CEO Satya Nadella sprak over sovereign cloud, wat Coen inspireerde om dit maar eens te duiden in een Techzine Talks aflevering. Terwijl steeds meer Europese organisaties en overheden zorgen uiten over datasoevereiniteit, investeren Amerikaanse cloudgiganten miljarden in Europese datacenters en sovereign cloudoplossingen.Hoofdstukken:00:00 Introductie en aanleiding voor het onderwerp 02:15 Wat is sovereign cloud en waarom is het zo belangrijk geworden?04:20 De Amerikaanse Cloud Act en de implicaties voor Europese data07:30 Key-management en encryptie als beschermingslaag 10:15 Confidential computing uitgelegd 12:40 Disconnected en air-gapped oplossingen voor kritieke omgevingen15:30 Microsoft 365 Local en de beperkingen met Copilot 18:45 De AI-paradox: innovatie versus soevereiniteit 19:20 Transparantie en groeiende Europese zorgen (ICC-case) 23:45 Waarom een volledig Europees alternatief praktisch onhaalbaar is28:15 De enorme investeringen van hyperscalers in Europa 31:50 Is het realistisch om zonder Amerikaanse cloudtechnologie te opereren? 34:00 Conclusie en praktisch toekomstperspectiefDe podcast belicht hoe sovereign cloud oplossingen worden aangeboden door de grote Amerikaanse cloudproviders, maar legt ook bloot waarom een volledig Europees alternatief praktisch en financieel onhaalbaar lijkt. Coen en Erik bespreken de mogelijkheden van key management door Europese partijen, air-gapped oplossingen, en hoe organisaties toch veilig gebruik kunnen maken van Amerikaanse cloudtechnologie zonder hun soevereiniteit volledig op te geven.Een must-listen voor IT-beslissers, beleidsmakers en iedereen die betrokken is bij strategische cloudkeuzes in een steeds complexer geopolitiek landschap.#SovereignCloud #CloudComputing #Microsoft #AWS #GoogleCloud #DataSoevereiniteit #GDPR #CloudAct #Encryptie #AirGapped #TechzineTalks #Cybersecurity #CloudSecurity #EuropeseCloud #Hyperscalers #ConfidentialComputing #ITInfrastructuur #DataPrivacy #TechPodcast #Datacenter #CloudStrategy #DigitaleSoevereiniteit #Microsoft365Local #Copilot #GeneratieveAI #CloudRegulering #GAIA-X #EUCloudInitiative #DataResidentie #KeyManagementAbonneer je op Techzine Talks via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube of je favoriete podcast-app voor meer diepgaande analyses van enterprise technologie en blijf op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen in de IT-wereld.Bezoek www.techzine.nl voor meer artikelen, analyses en achtergronden over dit en andere enterprise IT-onderwerpen.

Thierry Weber revient sur l'investissement de 400 millions de dollars de Microsoft en Suisse pour développer ses infrastructures cloud et IA. Une annonce stratégique, mais qui soulève des questions de souveraineté numérique : bien que les données soient stockées localement, elles restent soumises au droit américain via le Cloud Act. Alors que Microsoft s'impose dans l'écosystème helvétique, des initiatives locales peinent à rivaliser. Pour Weber, cet essor du cloud étranger est autant une opportunité de formation qu'un risque de dépendance numérique préoccupante.

https://www.facebook.com/fingeredfloodgate https://cloudact.bandcamp.com/ https://theuntattooed.bandcamp.com/

Bienvenue dans "IA Pas que la Data" ! Dans cet épisode un peu particulier, on plonge au cœur de la reconnaissance vocale avec Jean-Louis Quéguiner, CEO de Gladia, et on dérive... beaucoup. On y découvre Gladia, une plateforme speech to text, avec une spécialité : le multilinguisme et la tolérance aux accents du monde entier.On explorera les cas d'usages concrets pour l'IA, de la médecine à la relation client, en passant par les systèmes bancaires.Mais l'épisode prend vite de l'ampleur : on parle de souveraineté des données, des enjeux de l'IA, de la géopolitique, et on se demande même si OpenAI va survivre. Bref, préparez-vous à une conversation passionnante, pleine d'humour et de rebondissements, avec un expert qui n'a pas peur de sortir des sentiers battus.(00:00) - Introduction et présentation de Jean-Louis Queguiner (01:42) - Big Data, Hadoop et les premiers pas dans l'IA (03:49) - OVH : Challenges et opportunités Big Data (06:43) - Les leçons des startups et l'approche MVP (09:07) - La genèse de Gladia : De l'Idée à la réalité (11:22) - Gladia et l'Infrastructure OVH : Indépendance et synergies (15:04) - Le multilinguisme : Un atout stratégique pour l'IA en Europe (17:13) - Souveraineté numérique : Cloud Act, Cloud et Data (28:35) - Reconnaissance vocale : Technologies et défis (31:27) - Cas d'usage avancés : médecine, support et localisation (42:26) - Accessibilité et IA : L'impact de la voix (50:04) - Confidentialité, modèles économiques et protection des données (52:08) - OpenAI : Modèles, défis financiers et l'avenir Cet épisode vous a plus, alors, nous comptons sur vous pour mettre 5 étoiles et le partager autour de vous !

Der Datentransfer zwischen der EU und den USA steht erneut auf wackeligen Beinen. Nachdem der Europäische Gerichtshof (EuGH) bereits die Vorgängerabkommen "Safe Harbor" und "Privacy Shield" gekippt hatte, droht nun auch dem aktuellen "Transatlantic Data Privacy Framework" (TADPF) ein jähes Ende. Im c't-Datenschutz-Podcast erläutern Holger und Joerg Heidrich zusammen mit Dr. Stefan Brink die komplexe Gemengelage. Brink war bis Ende 2022 Landesdatenschutzbeauftragter in Baden-Württemberg, leitet nun das Wissenschaftliche Institut für die Digitalisierung der Arbeitswelt (wida) und kennt die Problematik aus nächster Nähe. Das TADPF sollte den Datentransfer eigentlich endlich auf eine solide Basis stellen. US-Präsident Biden erließ dazu 2022 die Executive Order 14086, die den Zugriff von US-Geheimdiensten auf EU-Bürgerdaten einschränken und Beschwerdemöglichkeiten schaffen sollte. Doch die Umsetzung ist fragil. Brink erläutert, dass die Executive Order jederzeit von US-Präsident Donald Trump wieder einkassiert werden könnte. Zudem ist das vorgesehene Kontrollgremium PCLOB faktisch lahmgelegt, da ihm die Mitglieder fehlen. Die EU-Kommission versucht nach Beobachtung von Holger, die Probleme auszusitzen, doch im EU-Parlament wachse der Druck, den Angemessenheitsbeschluss aufzuheben. Auch sogenannte Standardvertragsklauseln als Alternative stehen auf tönernen Füßen, da der EuGH hohe Anforderungen an "Transfer Impact Assessments" stellt. US-Gesetze wie der CLOUD Act ermöglichen weiterhin den Zugriff auf Daten bei US-Anbietern. Für EU-Unternehmen ist es kaum leistbar, sich komplett von US-Diensten zu lösen, da eine digitale Souveränität Europas fehlt. Die Aufsichtsbehörden in Deutschland und Europa sitzen nach Brinks Schilderung zwischen den Stühlen: Sie wissen um die rechtlichen Mängel, schrecken aber vor harten Maßnahmen zurück – auch aus Furcht vor wirtschaftlichem Chaos. Stattdessen setzen sie auf Dialog und hoffen, dass Unternehmen zumindest Alternativen prüfen. Die Diskutanten sehen die Gefahr, dass der Datentransfer zum Spielball im Handelskonflikt zwischen den USA und der EU werden könnte. Am Ende bleibt die Erkenntnis: Der transatlantische Datenverkehr ist in schwere See geraten, und Unternehmen täten gut daran, sich nach Alternativen umzusehen.

Mit der Rückkehr von Donald Trump ins Weiße Haus wird die Abhängigkeit von US-Cloud-Diensten zu einem wachsenden Problem. Denn der Cloud Act zwingt US-amerikanische Firmen Anweisungen von US-Behörden Folge zu leisten, ganz gleich wo deren Server stehen. Nicht nur Staaten und Unternehmen, sondern auch Privatpersonen sind betroffen. Angefangen bei Datenspeichern über Online-Office-Anwendungen bis zu grundlegenden Internetdiensten wie DNS oder Zertifizierungsstellen. Es betrifft selbst smarte Geräte wie WLAN-Steckdosen, wenn deren zentralen Dienste auf einem Hyperscaler wie Amazon AWS oder Microsoft Azure liegen. Doch es gibt Möglichkeiten, den Datenabfluss zu minimieren und Alternativen zu nutzen. Welche das sind, erläutert c't Redakteur Peter Siering. Die Optionen reichen von Suchmaschinen über europäische Cloud-Speicher und Open-Source-Projekte bis zu dezentralen, sichereren Messengern. Wie der Wechsel ganz praktisch aussieht, davon berichtet c't-Redakteur Stefan Porteck, der selbst viele seiner Daten auf selbstverwaltete Dienste migriert hat. Über Vor- und Nachteile und verschiedene Formen digitaler Selbstständigkeit, etwa datensparsamen Hoster oder eigener Homeserver, diskutieren sie gemeinsam mit Moderator Keywan Tonekaboni. Mit dabei: Peter Siering, Stefan Porteck Moderation: Keywan Tonekaboni Produktion: Ralf Taschke Links zu Artikeln: - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Alternativen-zu-US-Clouddiensten-Ueberblick-und-Konfigurationstipps-10294724.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Eigene-Foto-Cloud-mit-einem-Raspi-und-Immich-aufsetzen-10276097.html - https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Android-Alternative-Datenschutz-und-Komfort-vereinen-mit-GrapheneOS-10252683.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Dateien-mit-Cryptomator-verschluesselt-in-der-Cloud-speichern-10335168.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Marktuebersicht-DSGVO-konforme-Managed-Nextclouds-vom-Webhoster-9742690.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Vorstellung-von-Nextcloud-Die-Funktionen-der-selbst-gehosteten-Cloud-Loesung-9741087.html

Mit der Rückkehr von Donald Trump ins Weiße Haus wird die Abhängigkeit von US-Cloud-Diensten zu einem wachsenden Problem. Denn der Cloud Act zwingt US-amerikanische Firmen Anweisungen von US-Behörden Folge zu leisten, ganz gleich wo deren Server stehen. Nicht nur Staaten und Unternehmen, sondern auch Privatpersonen sind betroffen. Angefangen bei Datenspeichern über Online-Office-Anwendungen bis zu grundlegenden Internetdiensten wie DNS oder Zertifizierungsstellen. Es betrifft selbst smarte Geräte wie WLAN-Steckdosen, wenn deren zentralen Dienste auf einem Hyperscaler wie Amazon AWS oder Microsoft Azure liegen. Doch es gibt Möglichkeiten, den Datenabfluss zu minimieren und Alternativen zu nutzen. Welche das sind, erläutert c't Redakteur Peter Siering. Die Optionen reichen von Suchmaschinen über europäische Cloud-Speicher und Open-Source-Projekte bis zu dezentralen, sichereren Messengern. Wie der Wechsel ganz praktisch aussieht, davon berichtet c't-Redakteur Stefan Porteck, der selbst viele seiner Daten auf selbstverwaltete Dienste migriert hat. Über Vor- und Nachteile und verschiedene Formen digitaler Selbstständigkeit, etwa datensparsamen Hoster oder eigener Homeserver, diskutieren sie gemeinsam mit Moderator Keywan Tonekaboni. Mit dabei: Peter Siering, Stefan Porteck Moderation: Keywan Tonekaboni Produktion: Ralf Taschke Links zu Artikeln: - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Alternativen-zu-US-Clouddiensten-Ueberblick-und-Konfigurationstipps-10294724.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Eigene-Foto-Cloud-mit-einem-Raspi-und-Immich-aufsetzen-10276097.html - https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Android-Alternative-Datenschutz-und-Komfort-vereinen-mit-GrapheneOS-10252683.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Dateien-mit-Cryptomator-verschluesselt-in-der-Cloud-speichern-10335168.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Marktuebersicht-DSGVO-konforme-Managed-Nextclouds-vom-Webhoster-9742690.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Vorstellung-von-Nextcloud-Die-Funktionen-der-selbst-gehosteten-Cloud-Loesung-9741087.html

Mit der Rückkehr von Donald Trump ins Weiße Haus wird die Abhängigkeit von US-Cloud-Diensten zu einem wachsenden Problem. Denn der Cloud Act zwingt US-amerikanische Firmen Anweisungen von US-Behörden Folge zu leisten, ganz gleich wo deren Server stehen. Nicht nur Staaten und Unternehmen, sondern auch Privatpersonen sind betroffen. Angefangen bei Datenspeichern über Online-Office-Anwendungen bis zu grundlegenden Internetdiensten wie DNS oder Zertifizierungsstellen. Es betrifft selbst smarte Geräte wie WLAN-Steckdosen, wenn deren zentralen Dienste auf einem Hyperscaler wie Amazon AWS oder Microsoft Azure liegen. Doch es gibt Möglichkeiten, den Datenabfluss zu minimieren und Alternativen zu nutzen. Welche das sind, erläutert c't Redakteur Peter Siering. Die Optionen reichen von Suchmaschinen über europäische Cloud-Speicher und Open-Source-Projekte bis zu dezentralen, sichereren Messengern. Wie der Wechsel ganz praktisch aussieht, davon berichtet c't-Redakteur Stefan Porteck, der selbst viele seiner Daten auf selbstverwaltete Dienste migriert hat. Über Vor- und Nachteile und verschiedene Formen digitaler Selbstständigkeit, etwa datensparsamen Hoster oder eigener Homeserver, diskutieren sie gemeinsam mit Moderator Keywan Tonekaboni. Mit dabei: Peter Siering, Stefan Porteck Moderation: Keywan Tonekaboni Produktion: Ralf Taschke Links zu Artikeln: - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Alternativen-zu-US-Clouddiensten-Ueberblick-und-Konfigurationstipps-10294724.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Eigene-Foto-Cloud-mit-einem-Raspi-und-Immich-aufsetzen-10276097.html - https://www.heise.de/hintergrund/Android-Alternative-Datenschutz-und-Komfort-vereinen-mit-GrapheneOS-10252683.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Dateien-mit-Cryptomator-verschluesselt-in-der-Cloud-speichern-10335168.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Marktuebersicht-DSGVO-konforme-Managed-Nextclouds-vom-Webhoster-9742690.html - https://www.heise.de/ratgeber/Vorstellung-von-Nextcloud-Die-Funktionen-der-selbst-gehosteten-Cloud-Loesung-9741087.html

Dans cet épisode de DSI et des Hommes, Nicolas BARD reçoit Philippe Païola, architecte cloud spécialisé en IA chez Microsoft. Ensemble, ils décryptent les grandes questions autour du cloud public, de la gouvernance, des coûts, de la sécurité, de la souveraineté des données (et du Cloud Act), sans oublier l'impact environnemental et les perspectives avec l'IA générative et les agents intelligents.Un échange à la fois pratique, technique, accessibles aux non-experts, et plein d'humour et de pédagogie. Un épisode qui fait le tri entre mythe et réalité, pour aider les DSI, dirigeants, ou simples curieux à mieux comprendre les enjeux du cloud aujourd'hui.

Since 2001, Ron Deibert and his team at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab have uncovered dozens of covert spy operations around the world, including the creators of the phone hacking spyware, Pegasus, created by the Israeli company, NSO group, whose clients include Saudi Arabia's Mohammed bin Salman, and Rwanda's Paul Kagame. In a wide-ranging discussion, Deibert tells host Steve Paikin about his recent trip to the White House, the impact that the Trump administration's policies will have on cyber security worldwide, and why Canadians ought to be concerned by a bilateral agreement with the U.S. called the Cloud Act. His new book is called, "Chasing Shadows: Cyber Espionage, Subversion, and the Global Fight for Democracy." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Épisode 110 - Comment sécuriser l'usage de l'IA en entreprise ? Confidentialité, RGPD et Intelligence Artificielle : Quels risques et quelles bonnes pratiques ?Dans ce nouvel épisode de Digital Feeling, j'aborde un sujet essentiel pour toutes les entreprises qui adoptent l'IA : la protection des données et la sécurisation de son usage par les collaborateurs.De plus en plus d'employés utilisent des outils comme ChatGPT ou Copilot, parfois sans l'aval de leur entreprise. Ce phénomène, appelé Shadow GPT, pose des questions en termes de confidentialité des données, respect du RGPD et conformité aux réglementations internationales.

Interview with Graig McLellan, Founder & CEO of ThinkOn, Inc.  In this episode of CGE Radio, J. Richard Jones speaks with Craig McLellan, Founder & CEO of ThinkOn, Inc. Mr. McLellan has been at the forefront of technology innovation and data security in Canada and the U.S. for the past twenty-five years. Under Craig's leadership, ThinkOn continues to grow, both organically and through strategic acquisition, and has been ranked on both the Deloitte Technology Fast 500™ and The Globe and Mail's list of Canada's Top Growing Companies. A pioneer in cloud services, ThinkOn was one of the first companies in the world to receive VMware Cloud Verified certification and was recently recognized as the VMware Sovereign Cloud Partner for Canada. Craig currently sits on advisory boards for several industry-leading organizations including Veeam, Hitachi, and VMware, where he helps to guide strategy. Think On, Inc. is a cloud service provider with a global data center footprint offering creative solutions for complex data problems. ThinkOn's channel-only distribution model empowers value-add resellers and service providers across North America, the UK, Europe, and Australia through solutions built on leading technology platforms. In this episode: Data landscape evolution Practical steps for strengthen data security U.S. CLOUD Act impact on Canada. The importance of data sovereignty The role of government policy in data sovereignty And more!

In this episode we chat to Niklas Silfverström, CEO of Klang.ai, about Europe's need for AI independence. We discuss data privacy risks, the Cloud Act, and AI bias, emphasizing the need for European infrastructure and language models. Niklas highlights how relying on American AI companies threatens sovereignty, and why investing in GPUs, data centers, and energy is crucial for Europe's competitive future. He also warns that without these efforts, Europe risks becoming a mere consumer of AI rather than a leader in the field. We should note that we use Klang.ai's wonderful platform in the backend processes of AI-Podden - they make our jobs much easier.

This Day in Legal History: 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution On February 27, 1951, the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, formally limiting the president to two terms in office. This amendment was a direct response to Franklin D. Roosevelt's unprecedented four-term presidency, which spanned the Great Depression and World War II. Before Roosevelt, no president had served more than two terms, following the precedent set by George Washington. However, there was no constitutional restriction preventing a president from seeking additional terms.  Roosevelt's long tenure raised concerns about excessive executive power and the potential for an elected leader to hold office indefinitely. After his death in 1945, Congress moved to ensure that no future president could serve more than two terms. The amendment was passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the required number of states in 1951. It states that no person may be elected president more than twice or serve more than ten years in cases where a vice president assumes the role due to a predecessor's death or resignation.  Since its ratification, the 22nd Amendment has shaped U.S. presidential politics, preventing any leader from holding office for more than eight years. Some have argued that it protects democracy by preventing the concentration of power, while others believe it limits voter choice. Despite occasional calls for repeal, the amendment remains in effect, reinforcing the principle of regular transitions of power.A federal court is scrutinizing the role of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) in cutting U.S. government spending, raising questions about transparency and legality. At a hearing, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly repeatedly pressed a Justice Department lawyer on Musk's authority but received vague answers. Multiple lawsuits argue that DGE, which operates with secrecy, wields power beyond what is constitutionally allowed for agencies that require congressional approval or Senate confirmation.Despite Musk's public claims of leadership, the White House insists he is not an official DGE employee. Courts have been divided on the issue, with some judges refusing to block DGE's actions due to a lack of clear evidence of immediate harm. However, Judge Jeannette Vargas temporarily restricted DGE's access to Treasury Department systems over concerns about unauthorized data access.The Trump administration's shifting characterizations of DGE—sometimes calling it an agency, other times not—have further complicated legal battles. One judge described it as a “Goldilocks entity,” molded to fit legal needs. While some courts are hesitant to act without stronger evidence, ongoing lawsuits seek to bring DGE's operations into clearer legal scrutiny.'Where is Mr. Musk in all of this?' Judges question secrecy of DOGE's activities | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case brought by Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman who claims she was denied a promotion and later demoted due to her sexual orientation. Ames alleges that in 2019, her gay supervisor promoted a less qualified gay woman and replaced her with a gay man. The case challenges a legal standard that requires plaintiffs from majority groups—such as white or heterosexual individuals—to provide extra evidence of workplace discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Ames' lawyer argued that Title VII protects all individuals from discrimination, not just historically marginalized groups. The state of Ohio, her former employer, countered that Ames had not proven bias, noting that decision-makers may not have even known her sexual orientation. Some justices expressed concern that ruling for Ames could flood the courts with discrimination claims. Others questioned whether the heightened standard for majority-group plaintiffs improperly excludes valid cases.  The case comes amid increasing lawsuits from white and straight workers alleging "reverse discrimination," as well as political pushback against diversity and inclusion programs. A ruling in Ames' favor could make it easier for majority-group plaintiffs to challenge employment decisions, potentially reshaping workplace discrimination law.US Supreme Court hears straight woman's 'reverse' discrimination case | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's decision to designate Latin American drug cartels as terrorist organizations introduces new legal risks for U.S. businesses and migrants. The February 19 designation applies to groups like the Sinaloa Cartel and Tren de Aragua, allowing the Justice Department to prosecute cartel leaders for terrorism. However, legal experts warn that U.S. and foreign companies operating in cartel-controlled regions could also face prosecution if they make payments to these organizations, which could be considered material support for terrorism.  This concern is not hypothetical—similar cases have occurred before. In 2022, French cement company Lafarge pleaded guilty and paid $778 million in fines for making payments to terrorist-designated groups in Syria to keep its operations running. Given Mexico's status as the U.S.'s largest trading partner, businesses must reassess their dealings in high-risk areas.  Beyond corporate liability, migrants who pay cartels for border crossings or send money to cartel-influenced regions could also be prosecuted. Additionally, drug-related offenses linked to designated cartels could carry harsher penalties, including a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for narcoterrorism—double the usual drug trafficking penalty. The designation thus has sweeping implications for both corporate compliance and immigration enforcement.Trump's terrorist label for cartels raises prosecution risks for companies | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes, I review the latest misguided foray into tech policy from the Trump administration. The White House has issued a memorandum condemning foreign digital services taxes (DSTs), arguing that they unfairly target American tech companies. The memo warns that unless these taxes are repealed, retaliatory tariffs will be imposed. However, this stance appears to protect Big Tech rather than uphold economic fairness, as these taxes exist to counter profit-shifting tactics that allow tech giants to avoid local taxation. The U.S. frequently applies its own extraterritorial laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the CLOUD Act, yet objects when other countries enforce similar policies on American firms.The memorandum frames the issue as an attack on U.S. businesses, but every country has the right to tax corporations operating within its borders. DSTs primarily ensure that companies pay taxes where they generate revenue rather than in low-tax havens. The U.S. position ignores the broader global tax landscape and the rationale behind these policies, opting instead to shield Silicon Valley from accountability.If the U.S. enacts tariffs in response, it could trigger a trade war that harms American farmers, manufacturers, and consumers while preserving Big Tech's profits. The memorandum's real purpose seems to be maintaining an uneven playing field where American firms operate abroad without the same obligations as local businesses.Big Tech Protection: U.S. Picks A Trade Fight To Defend Tech Firms This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Acer's CEO Jason Chen announced a significant price increase for laptops in the United States, set to rise by 10% starting in March 2025. This decision is attributed to the incoming tariffs from the Trump administration, which are expected to impact products imported after February. The Consumer Technology Association estimates that this price hike could cost U.S. consumers a staggering $143 billion, as 80% of laptop imports come from China. Major brands, including Apple, Dell, and HP, are likely to be affected, with Acer's high-end gaming laptop, the Predator Triton, seeing a price jump from $3,799 to $4,178.The implications of these price increases extend beyond consumer costs, affecting IT service providers and their procurement strategies. As hardware costs rise, businesses may shift towards longer device life cycles, focusing on maintenance and upgrades rather than frequent hardware refreshes. This shift could also boost the refurbished and used hardware markets as companies seek to mitigate costs. IT service providers must prepare for pricing volatility and engage in discussions with clients about alternative solutions to navigate these changes effectively.In addition to the laptop price hike, the podcast discusses the ongoing encryption battle involving Apple and the U.K. government's request for a backdoor into iCloud data. U.S. lawmakers have expressed strong opposition to this request, warning that it could compromise the security of American data and set a dangerous precedent for data sovereignty. The potential modifications to the 2018 Cloud Act could complicate data requests from foreign governments, raising concerns about localized data storage and compliance.Lastly, the episode highlights new developments in the managed service provider (MSP) market, including CompTIA's launch of the CloudNetX certification aimed at senior IT professionals and ZofiQ's AI-driven solution for help desk efficiency. The podcast also covers Xtreme Networks' introduction of a consumption-based billing model for MSPs and AvePoint's new platform designed to enhance revenue streams for service providers. These innovations reflect the evolving landscape of IT services, emphasizing the need for adaptability and strategic planning in response to market changes.Four things to know today00:00 Sticker Shock Incoming: Acer Says Laptop Prices Are Going Up—And It's Just the Beginning04:09 Apple's Encryption Battle Heats Up—Will Governments Force a Backdoor into Your Data?06:46 CompTIA Enters the High-Level Cloud Cert Game—But Will MSPs and IT Pros Buy In?Supported by:  https://syncromsp.com/Event: https://www.nerdiocon.com/ All our Sponsors: https://businessof.tech/sponsors/ Do you want the show on your podcast app or the written versions of the stories? Subscribe to the Business of Tech: https://www.businessof.tech/subscribe/Looking for a link from the stories? The entire script of the show, with links to articles, are posted in each story on https://www.businessof.tech/ Support the show on Patreon: https://patreon.com/mspradio/ Want to be a guest on Business of Tech: Daily 10-Minute IT Services Insights? Send Dave Sobel a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/businessoftech Want our stuff? Cool Merch? Wear “Why Do We Care?” - Visit https://mspradio.myspreadshop.com Follow us on:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/28908079/YouTube: https://youtube.com/mspradio/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mspradionews/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mspradio/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@businessoftechBluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/businessof.tech

LdN418 Staatsstreich in den USA?, Trump verhandelt mit Putin über Ukraine (Interview Claudia Major, Politikwissenschaftlerin), TV-Duell, Bundestagswahl nach neuen Regeln, Korruption in Deutschland, CLOUD Act und Datenschutz, Bürokratieabbau in der Praxis (Interview Heidrun Hausen, DELO)

Dans ce nouveau Déclic Numérique de DSI et des Hommes, nous explorons un sujet souvent nébuleux mais crucial : où résident réellement vos données lorsque vous utilisez des services cloud ? Nous plongeons dans l'infrastructure des géants du secteur comme AWS, Microsoft Azure et Google Cloud, et comparons leurs solutions aux alternatives françaises, telles qu'OVHcloud, Scaleway et Outscale.À travers cette discussion, nous abordons les enjeux de localisation des données sous l'angle de la conformité réglementaire (RGPD, Cloud Act), de la performance (latence, disponibilité) et de la souveraineté numérique. Découvrez comment faire des choix éclairés en matière de cloud, que ce soit pour garantir la sécurité de vos données, répondre aux exigences légales ou encore réduire votre impact environnemental.Sources mentionnées dans cet épisode :AWS Infrastructure mondialeAzure Infrastructure mondialeGoogle Cloud Infrastructure mondialeRGPD et Cloud ActLes alternatives locales : OVHcloud et Scaleway----------------------------------DSI et des Hommes est un podcast animé par Nicolas BARD, qui explore comment le numérique peut être mis au service des humains, et pas l'inverse. Avec pour mission de rendre le numérique accessible à tous, chaque épisode plonge dans les expériences de leaders, d'entrepreneurs, et d'experts pour comprendre comment la transformation digitale impacte nos façons de diriger, collaborer, et évoluer. Abonnez-vous pour découvrir des discussions inspirantes et des conseils pratiques pour naviguer dans un monde toujours plus digital.Hébergé par Ausha. Visitez ausha.co/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Die Macht von Daten wird oft erst dann sichtbar, wenn sie missbraucht wird. In Episode 125 des c't-Datenschutz-Podcasts werfen Holger, Joerg und der Datenschutzbeauftragte Markus Sailer einen Blick zurück auf historische Beispiele, in denen Staaten ihre Datensammlungen zur gezielten Verfolgung von Bevölkerungsgruppen genutzt haben. Ein besonders bekanntes Beispiel ist die Volkszählung von 1939 im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland. Mit Hilfe von Lochkarten und Hollerith-Tabelliermaschinen erfassten die Nazis damals die Religionszugehörigkeit der Bürger. In Ergänzungskarten wurden "Mischlinge" "Volljuden", "Geltungsjuden" und "Glaubensjuden" gemäß der Nürnberger Rassengesetze von 1935 systematisch erfasst. Die Daten bildeten später die Grundlage für die Deportation von Juden in Konzentrationslager. In anderen Staaten wie den Niederlanden fielen solche Datensammlungen den deutschen Besatzern in die Hände und wurden für Verfolgungsmaßnahmen missbraucht. Ein weiteres Beispiel ist die systematische Erfassung von Homosexuellen durch die Gestapo ab 1934. Auf Basis von polizeilichen "Rosa Listen" wurden zehntausende Männer in Karteien erfasst, überwacht und verfolgt. Insgesamt 50.000 Verurteilungen erfolgten nach dem berüchtigten Paragraphen 175, der in der Bundesrepublik erst 1994 endgültig abgeschafft wurde. Die Gesprächspartner sind sich einig: Auch wenn sich die Methoden geändert haben, besteht die Gefahr des Datenmissbrauchs durch staatliche Stellen weiterhin. Rasterfahndung, die wieder in Deutschland diskutierte Vorratsdatenspeicherung oder der "Cloud Act" in den USA sind aktuelle Beispiele für weitreichende Zugriffsbefugnisse. Zwar setzt die europäische Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DSGVO) hier wichtige Grenzen. Doch die Diskutanten bezweifeln, ob sie ausreicht, um die Demokratie langfristig zu schützen. Ihr Wunsch an die Politik ist daher ein stärkeres Bewusstsein für die Missbrauchsgefahren von Datensammlungen. Statt Datenschutz vor allem als Hindernis zu sehen, sollte er auch als Schutzschild der freiheitlichen Gesellschaft begriffen werden. Denn historische Erfahrungen mahnen zur Wachsamkeit - in Zeiten von Big Data und Künstlicher Intelligenz mehr denn je.

Welcome to today's episode of Clio Con Clips 2024!Mayur Gadhia, the customer-focused Founder of CloudAct and Cloud For Law Firms joins us in today's conversation.He has outstanding expertise with cloud-based software, such as Netsuite, SAP, Oracle, SUN and Blackline. His technological business solutions are aimed to make the legal sector more streamlined and seamless for all.In this episode, Mayur delves into his practical solutions in legal tech and how cloud-based systems can be used to put the customer's needs first.Stay tuned to make the most of the key points from Clio Con's amazing guest speakers and harness your momentum.Clio would also like to announce a new offer for Clio Con 2025, which will be in Boston, Massachusetts. Find out more with the above link!Support the show

Ubs prevede che le case automobilistiche cinesi venderanno 5 milioni di veicoli all'estero nel 2024, con gran parte della domanda proveniente dai mercati in via di sviluppo, e consolideranno la posizione della Cina come il primo esportatore mondiale. I veicoli alimentati a batteria rappresenteranno quest'anno il 30% delle esportazioni totali di automobili della Cina. Il 5 luglio nell'Unione Europea sono entrati in vigore nuovi dazi sulle auto elettriche, che si applicheranno a tre produttori campione: Byd nella misura del 17.4%; Geely nella misura del 19.9%; Saic nella misura del 37.6%. Il governo cinese ha fin da subito minacciato ritorsioni contro le importazioni europee, dalla carne di maiale all'industria dei liquori francese. Ma la Commissione europea ha nuovamente corretto l'entità dei dazi provvisori anti-dumping in vigore dal 5 luglio sulle importazioni di auto elettriche prodotte in Cina.Intanto a beneficiare maggiormente delle nuove tabelle, pensate per mettere sullo stesso piano car maker europei e cinesi è stata l'Americana Tesla. Alberto Annichiarico Sole 24 Ore e Fabio Scacciavillani - economista- Il Sole24Ore.Energia in Italia - sud hub strategico per l'energia italiana?Noi soffriamo il fatto che quasi metà della nostra generazione viene dal gas, che ha costi più alti, in particolare dal 2022. L'apporto delle rinnovabili, che da una parte ha aumentato l'offerta, ha un contributo limitato ed è stato comunque costoso in termini di incentivi e di adeguamento delle reti. Bellissimo sarebbe avere più rinnovabili, magari più idroelettrico, come hanno i paesi scandinavi, che tengono i prezzi a 50, ma da noi il grande idroelettrico è praticamente fermo da mezzo secolo.La Francia da anni garantisce alla sua grande industria prezzi intorno ai 50/MWh, e anche la Germania ha messo prezzi a 70/MWh, mentre in Italia, le nostre industrie pagano facilmente più di 100/MWh.Noi non ce la facciamo, strangolati dal debito, a fari gli stessi aiuti di stato. Il Parlamento e la Commissione, dopo gli anni dell'infatuazione verde, riconoscono da mesi il problema. Dopo le ultime elezioni, che non stravolgeranno più di tanto gli equilibri politici, si cercherà delle soluzioni per arrivare ad un prezzo unico, condizione essenziale per avere mercati efficienti, che rimane oggi, come allora, obiettivo primario.Il mercato unico dell'energiaIl mercato, in particolare se unico, deve avere anche un prezzo unico, e qua non ci siamo e, purtroppo, il paese con i livelli più alti rimane l'Italia. I prezzi per oggi 14 giugno, sul mercato all'ingrosso, sono in Italia a 107 per megawattora (MWh), contro i 33 della Francia, i 44 della Spagna e i 91 della Germania. Davide Tabarelli - Il Sole24Ore.Data center, scontro tra big per un mercato da 15 miliardi.Una torta da 15 miliardi. Questa la posta in gioco sui data center in Italia.Alla quale guardano sia i colossi d oltreoceano (Google, Amazon e Microsoft su tutti, ma anche Equinixo Vantage Data Center), sia i player europei, in particolare Data 4 (si veda l'articolo in basso) oanche Aruba, determinati a far valere le migliori condizioni in termini di sovranità digitale: lacapacità di controllare i propri dati e la propria tecnologia. È su questo punto che si sta concentrando lo scontro competitivo con le leggi Usa, a partire dal CloudAct, che permettono ampi poteri di accesso ai dati e la risposta di investitori portati a puntare dipiù al made in Europe - Andrea Biondi - Il Sole24Ore.

I detta avsnitt gästas Avimas VD David Björk av Pontus Bengtson från Autodesk. Pontus delar med sig av värdefulla insikter om molntjänster, dess fördelar som kostnadseffektivitet, skalbarhet och mobilitet, samt utmaningarna kring säkerhet och kontroll.David och Pontus diskuterar hur pandemin har accelererat digitaliseringen och betonar vikten av att balansera säkerhet med effektivitet. Pontus belyser också vikten av samarbete, kommunikation och riskvärdering för att framgångsrikt implementera digitala lösningar i byggprojekt. Han förklarar även hur man kan hantera känslig information och navigera regelverk som GDPR och Cloud Act.Vill du komma i kontakt med oss på Byggsnack?Erica Andersson: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anderssonerica/David Björk: https://www.linkedin.com/in/thebjork/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Cet épisode de QualityTime, le podcast de ZENITY, animé par Karim Hafsi, explore les enjeux de la cybersécurité avec comme invité Maître François Gorriez, avocat au sein du cabinet Mathias Avocats spécialisé en droit de la cybersécurité et Silvain Evrard, CEO de ZENITY. Sujets Abordés: La confiance dans le monde numérique : Comment la protection des données et la sécurité en ligne sont mises à l'épreuve. Les défis juridiques de la gestion des données : L'incompatibilité entre la juridiction américaine (Patriot Act, Cloud Act) et le droit européen (RGPD) concernant le traitement des données personnelles. La gestion des incidents de sécurité : Meilleures pratiques et conseils pour faire face aux violations de données et gérer les crises numériques. L'impact de l'IA dans le domaine juridique : L'exemple concret de l'outil "Lawxer" et son rôle dans l'automatisation des tâches juridiques, notamment l'analyse de contrats. L'éthique et la responsabilité des algorithmes : Transparence des prises de décisions par l'IA et la question de la responsabilité en cas de problème. La capacité de l'Europe à fournir des solutions numériques souveraines performantes face aux géants américains comme Microsoft ou Google, notamment dans le domaine de la santé avec l'exemple du Health Data Hub. Retrouvez-nous sur les réseaux sociaux : Linkedin | site de ZENITY -- Cybersécurité, Droit Informatique, Protection des Données, RGPD, Patriot Act, Cloud Act, Cyberattaques, LAWXER, Intelligence Artificielle, Ethique de l'IA, Health Data Hub, Souveraineté Numérique. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/zenity-test/message

Didier Testot Fondateur de LA BOURSE ET LA VIE TV revient dans l'Info éco + Sud Radio sur les thèmes suivants : EDF confie à Amazon la maintenance de ces centrales. Jean-Marie, les semaines se suivent et se ressemblent, et si l'on entend de plus en plus parler d'intelligence artificielle, l'intelligence économique elle semble relayée au dernier rang des préoccupations de certains grands groupes. Il faudrait faire la liste, elle est longue de tous les communiqués triomphateurs de groupes mettant en avant des technologies liées aux GAFAM, (Google Amazon Facebook, Apple ou Microsoft…). Comme s'il s'agissait d'une gloire alors qu'il s'agit seulement de pertes de savoir-faire car les données seront utilisées par ces plateformes technologiques. Cette fois c'est le Canard Enchainé qui avait révélé cette information et voici donc la réponse d'EDF à ce sujet interrogée par les médias « Pour accompagner dans la durée le parc nucléaire en exploitation, EDF a décidé de moderniser une partie de son système d'information dit de gestion. Dans le cadre de ces travaux et dans le respect des exigences en terme notamment de cybersécurité, enjeu majeur pour le Groupe, plusieurs partenaires IT dont AWS ont été sélectionnés pour venir compléter l'offre des data centers et des compétences internes. Nous ne ferons pas de commentaires ni sur le contenu du contrat, ni sur les dimensions financières ; ces informations étant couvertes par le secret en matière commerciale et industrielle. » Didier, comment interpréter cette communication pouvez-vous la traduire ? C'est très symptomatique de ce qui se passe dans certaines de nos grandes entreprises aujourd'hui, une manière de traiter des sujets vitaux des entreprises à savoir leur sécurité en oubliant l'essentiel. Pourquoi je vous dis cela EDF parle de cybersécurité, gros mot pour dire que bien entendu les données d'EDF sont capitales donc c'est un sujet clé. Alors si c'est le cas, en quoi Amazon WS société américaine, est-elle dans ce domaine la solution pour EDF. Il se trouve que la semaine dernière, je parlais ici même à cette heure des risques pour nos données avec les législations américaines Cloud Act, Fisa, on ne revient pas dessus, qui permettent l'espionnage on pourrait dire institutionnalisé, légal, de toutes les entreprises si les services de renseignement américains le demandent. Donc en mettant ces données chez Amazon, j'aimerai bien que le DSI (Directeur de Systèmes d'information d'EDF me montre comment il peut éviter que les services américains y jettent un œil. Autre sujet clé, si Amazon a des problèmes techniques, cela peut arriver à un Français, et qu'il faille réagir, cela se passe comment ? EDF ne donne pas d'informations sur le contrat, cela peut se comprendre mais ce qui va surprendre ceux qui nous écoutent ce matin, c'est que lorsque je demande deux choses capitales à EDF, EDF botte en touche ! La suite sur https://www.labourseetlavie.com/economie-et-pedagogie/linfo-eco-presentee-par-didier-testot-sur-sud-radio/edf-confie-a-amazon-la-maintenance-des-donnees-de-ces-centrales-atos-en-grande-difficultes

C'était le 22 décembre dernier que le Président Joe Biden signait la loi d'autorisation de la Défense Nationale (NDAA) pour 886 milliards de dollars, ce qu'elle contenait pour les spécialistes de données était capital. Car parmi les programmes renouvelés se trouve pour être précis, la section 702 qui contient la loi sur la surveillance de l'intelligence étrangère (FISA). Retenez ce nom. Le FISA (Le Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) autorise l'administration américaine à espionner ouvertement les communications étrangères, et collecter les données sur les Américains. Elle est contestée aux Etats-Unis, mais nous pourrions dire jusque-là cela concerne les Américains, mais pas nous. Sauf que les agences de renseignement américaines célèbres pas seulement à Hollywood, telles que la NSA, nous pouvons remercier Edward Snowden il y a plusieurs années pour ses révélations, la CIA ou le FBI + connus, ont ainsi accès sans aucun mandat aux courriels, messages ou aux conversations téléphoniques des Européens. Et ces informations s'ajoutent aux données stockées sur les serveurs de grandes sociétés informatiques, qui elles sont aussi accessibles avec le Cloud ACT

À l'occasion de la journée mondiale de la protection des données (28 janvier 2024). Au cours des derniers mois, on a pu voir notamment du côté du Gouvernement de l'ex-Première Ministre française, Elisabeth Borne, une annonce sur l'utilisation exclusive d'Olvid pour les messageries. La société française de messagerie a dû dans le même temps faire face à des interrogations sur son hébergement chez Amazon (AWS). Depuis les lois américains Cloud Act et le FISA sont venues ajouter des interrogations sur la sécurité des donées en Europe et particulièrement en France Retour sur ces actualités et ce sujet avec mon invité Xavier Masia, Directeur des Opérations chez Jalios.

Dans cette "carte postale sonore", l'entrepreneur du numérique

In this episode, host Jim Lewis speaks with Richard Downing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice. Richard and Jim discuss the current state of the CLOUD Act, the e-Evidence Act, access to digital evidence, and the future of data transfers between the U.S. and EU, among other topics. 

Next month will mark the five-year anniversary of the CLOUD Act, a foundational piece of legislation on cross-border data transfers and criminal investigations. Before he was a University of Minnesota law professor and senior editor at Lawfare, Alan Rozenshtein worked in the Department of Justice where he was a member of the team that developed the CLOUD Act. In that capacity, he interacted with representatives from the large tech companies that would be most directly affected by the law. One of these people was Matt Perault, then the head of Global Policy Development at Facebook, and now the director of the Center on Technology Policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Matt joined Alan to discuss the CLOUD Act with two more people who were present at its creation: Greg Nojeim, senior counsel and director of the Security and Surveillance Project at the Center for Democracy and Technology, and Aaron Cooper, a partner at the law firm of Jenner & Block, who was at the time a colleague of Alan's at the Department of Justice. They talked about the reasons for the CLOUD Act's development, whether it has succeeded in its goals, and what we should expect to see in the next five years.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Le géant Amazon Web Services lance une offre de "cloud souverain". Une appellation paradoxale de la part d'une entreprise américaine. La firme entend s'appuyer sur la cryptographie pour garantir la confidentialité des données malgré les lois américaines extra-territoriales. Mon confrère Bruno Guglielminetti a suivi les annonces à Las Vegas.

Debbie Reynolds, “The Data Diva” talks to Cameron Kerry, Former General Counsel and Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce in the Obama Administration, Ann R. & Andrew H. Tisch Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institution, Center for Technology & Innovation. At Brookings and the MIT Media Lab, Cameron Kerry is applying his experience as a government thought leader on technology and public policy as a speaker, writer, and researcher on current issues in these areas. His work is focusing especially on privacy and information security and the application of privacy principles to fast-changing global business and technology. We discuss our meeting at the Berkeley Forum and the now mainstream nature of privacy, his unique path in public, private and academic spheres, why privacy is so important for him, surveillance no longer requires human presence, recent developments regarding the Cloud Act and data transfer between the US, the EU, and the UK, 2 streams of thought on surveillance and data transfers, the ADPPA (American Data Privacy Protection Act), California privacy vs. the ADPPA, US Chamber of Commerce objections to ADPPA, his privacy concerns about current technologies, human vs. consumer rights and his hope for Data Privacy in the future.This episode is a MUST listen for anyone who wants to know what is happening with Data Privacy in the U.S. on a state-federal and International level. Support the show

0:00 this doctor's office is weird 0:10 YouTube tests taking away 4K 1:03 Chrome to hurt adblockers 2:11 PS5 Jailbreak 3:09 Secret Lab 3:40 QUICK BITS 3:45 Ubisoft gives Stadians PC keys 4:10 CLOUD Act 4:46 Coinbase outage 5:12 Disney shows disappear from Dish 5:45 Kim K fined by SEC News Sources: https://lmg.gg/QkB3o

Dans cette partie 2, nous discutons le changement d'étage gratuit chez Heroku, les vagues de licenciement dans le monde technologique, le carrière de contributeur individuel et le cloud souverain. Et on vous parle de division de nombres entier dans la rubrique débutant. Enregistré le 9 septembre 2022 Téléchargement de l'épisode LesCastCodeurs-Episode–285.mp3 News Infrastructure NVidia interdit de vendre ses processeurs d'intelligence artificiels les plus puissants en Chine https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-says-us-has-imposed-new-license-requirement-future-exports-china–2022–08–31/ Le gouvernement Américain a mis en place la restriction (export control) 10% des ventes en Chine pour NVidia Après 23ans un internaute arrête d'utiliser son propre serveur e-mail et il explique pourquoi cela est devenu impossible https://t.co/TQ61y45MXT?ssr=true Sa raison: l'impossibilité d'avoir un service fiable. Les services de gestion d'e-mails sont désormais dans les mains de quelques gros acteurs (Google, Microsoft,..) qui déploient à coup d'algorithmes des filtres pour mettre en spam les e-mails indésirables Ces derniers sont obscures et peuvent être stupides en blacklistant des blocs entiers d'IPs L'internaute demande aux acteurs de se réveiller avant que les politiciens s'en mêlent (pour le pire …) Cela demande aussi la mise en place de protocoles plus avancés comme DMARC Pour des adresses “casual” comme celles des cast codeurs, c'est maintenant passage à la caisse et 3 à 5 euros par mois et pas adresse email c'est plus que la valeur de ces emails “casual” Cloud Heroku annonce la fin de son étage gratuit https://techcrunch.com/2022/08/25/heroku-announces-plans-to-eliminate-free-plans-blaming-fraud-and-abuse/?guccounter=2&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACIpHvzb3Pb2gtgt8Dm99CWGUhbEkdTgLVDgKwMNNmDI9UITQyNX64GA2LB6rQGNX2EreLoiRvxTqSUls5V_F8x6Cv_xGrfXtaIROP_Jiv45UUO1ODBIno3j7vHC4gokKVLqsZ948CmCfzG2bF03DL-uhbZqYuGXvxTfdsioTbjg heroic éliminé sont plan gratuit dénonçant des abus apres 10 ans pousser vers du paid plan, qui va aussi faire partir des gens et questionner ceux qui avaient un modèle économique base sur ce plan gratuit 28 novembre et aussi efface les comptes inactifs depuis 1 an beaucoup de fraude et d'abus vont garder des plans low cost et des plans étudiants au delà des abuseurs, les plans gratuits étaient utilises pour tester les apps avant leur déploiement Outillage Polices de caractères pour la programmation https://www.programmingfonts.org/#firacode J'aime bien Fira Code moi :slightly_smiling_face: Ce site permet de choisir parmi 111 polices différentes, pour pouvoir les comparer et choisir celle qu'on préfère Mickael Istria pointe sur une video expliquant les nouveautés autour d'Eclipse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDJtVYAJwyY c'est très visuel, â regarder Code snippet Content assis plus rapide Support des concepts récents de Java comme sealed classes dans les quick fix Etc Utiliser git blame malgré les reformattages https://michaelheap.com/git-ignore-rev/ fichier listant les revisions pour ignorer certains sha1 et le changement d'avant est pris Une page concise des quelques façons de sortir d'un problème avec Git (langage coloré) https://ohshitgit.com/ On a toujours quelquye chose a apprendre ; celle qui nettoie la branche principale, je ne connaissais pas. Architecture Les tendances vu pas les éditeurs de InfoQ dans le devops et le cloud https://www.infoq.com/articles/devops-and-cloud-trends–2022/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=calendar commenter les 4 vagues et ce qu'il y a dedans Data observability : live qualité de data etc Serverless everything: scale to 0 ; même les bases de données (soit parce que infra partagée soit via un scale down réveille par access à une gateway FinOps: contrôle des cours comme on optimisait pour les œufs eBPF pour injection de code et WASM pour le service mesh ingress (attention WASM dans envoy ne pas pas ton bon vieux Netty) Protection de la supply chain (encore faible en solutions) Low code no code mature pour moins besoin d'ingénieurs ou approche plus légère Developer experience qui influence les decisions Méthodologies Discussion sur la carrière contributeur individuel https://touilleur-express.fr/2022/07/17/devenir-staff-engineer/ exemple de ce que fait doctolib senior c'est le premier niveau d'autonomie et d'aisance ensuite, soit vous voulez coacher vo pairs (manager), soit contributeur individuel ce qui est demandé c'est le leadership (donc l'impact sur la societe et l'organisation) et ca demande une taille de societe minimale technique, communication, marketing d'idée occuper le role avant d'être reconnu (c'est assez classique ; ce qui change c'est le formalisme de la liste des competences attendues entre les boites) et on code moins car coder seul a moins de levier equivalence track technique/leadership et track managériales avec des ponts. Souvent d'arrète avant les VP et autre executive leadership (matrice de Radford) Premotion case avec promotion committee (2 fois pas an) Assez classique de paires un leadership avec un manager pour qu'ils s'épaulent mutuellement staff vs principal peut aussi etre du a l'impact cumulé de la personne et des principals peuvent aider sur une partie plus « bas niveau » / concrete de l'orga ou des projects grace a son experience et ses connexions au dela de son équipe actuelle des exemples de situations de travail du staff engineer https://touilleur-express.fr/2022/07/20/vis-ma-vie-de-staff-principal-engineer/ Loi, société et organisation https://twitter.com/smlpth/status/1551943751714603013?s=21&t=JhmioeiqlY8wFbzjry6b8Q encore un licenciement de masse. 10% chez Shopify. Pas mal d'aides pour faire passer la pilule (congés payés, aide à trouver un nouveau job…) ils ont fait le pari que post covid les gens resteraient à acheter en ligne mais c'est revenu aux volumes d'avant crise et inflation n'aident pas Annonce à l'américaine avec e-mail direct et arrêt du travail le lendemain Paye pendant quelques temps et support Un article sur les licenciements dans la tech des GAFAM et des startups https://www.lefigaro.fr/secteur/high-tech/la-grande-inquietude-des-salaries-de-la-tech-face-a-la-vague-de-licenciements–20220819 recession, résultats décevants, krach boursier (perte 1/4 de leur valeur) recerrement des politiques budgétaires, donc les projets semi viables ne le sont plus 88k licenciement en trois mois vs 5000 en 1 an en 2021: gros mois juin ->août Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, TikTok, Shopify, Snapchat, Netflix (–40% bourse), SoudnCloud (–20% d'effectif) L'argent facile arrête le cycle d'hyper acquisition et de facilite a l'hyper inflation des sociétés tech car impossibilité de lever des fonds startup ont du mal a garder les clients acquis en 1 donc recentrage et chute des activités non rentables fidélisation de l'employé vs aller chercher la meilleur offre comme un mercenaire Le Cloud de Confiance sous le coup du Cloud act américain ? https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/69865/les-clouds-confiance-bleu-et-s3ns-seront-bien-soumis-au-cloud-act-americain Alors attention, parce que Next Impact fait un peu dans le sensationnalisme https://twitter.com/pchapuis/status/1565775842675933188?t=y5S63FbOSbtH4FK_1meECQ&s=19 Avec cette interprétation, même Clever Cloud, utilisant du matériel américain, serait soumis au Cloud Act étude demandée par le ministère de la justice des pays bas le cloud act s'applique quand le fournisseur de cloud européen utilise du hardware ou logiciel américain (e.g. cloud de confiance Bleu et S3ns) muraille de chine en refusant tout client américain et en employant zero américain. mais c'est si le logiciel américain a accès aux données (routeur Cisco en decrypté etc), Stockage sans la clef cote client, etc le contrat MS serait « ring fencé » contre le cloud act mais peu d'infos Rubrique débutant Comment faire une division de deux entiers dans un flottant ? https://www.baeldung.com/java-integer-division-float-result Une division d'entier ramène que le quotient Et un entier Retourne un double au un des opérandes est un double, puis float, puis long. Donc il faut d'aster une des opérandes en float et pouf Conférences Nous contacter Pour réagir à cet épisode, venez discuter sur le groupe Google https://groups.google.com/group/lescastcodeurs Contactez-nous via twitter https://twitter.com/lescastcodeurs Faire un crowdcast ou une crowdquestion Soutenez Les Cast Codeurs sur Patreon https://www.patreon.com/LesCastCodeurs Tous les épisodes et toutes les infos sur https://lescastcodeurs.com/

Episode 365 avec Sébastien S. et David.Sommaire :• A comme Arnaque (00:02:23) : Disques SSD à pas cher... pas de miracle. Alerte aux arnaques au stockage, avec le SSD 30TB proposé par Walmart pour 39$. (source, source) • C comme Cloud ACT (00:10:20) : Quand la justice américaine demande vos données. C'est quoi exactement le Cloud ACT ? (source, source, source) • G comme Google (00:18:39) : Téléphone pliable avec caméra dans le cadre ? Des brevets annoncent les nouveaux téléphones Google pliable avec caméra intégrée au cadre. (source, source) • I comme IA (00:23:47) : Quand le fisc utilise l'IA . Le cadastre français annonce une extension de l'utilisation de l'IA pour traquer les piscines non déclarées. (source) • L comme LastPass (00:28:54) : Code source dérobé. LastPass se serait fait voler des morceaux de code source et des informations techniques. (source) • N comme Nasa (00:36:02) : Quand la NASA répare la sonde Voyager 1. La NASA résoud un problème informatique sur une sonde lancée dans les années 70. (source, source) • N comme Neo Oculus (00:42:04) : Le prochain casque VR arrive en octobre. Meta Cambria arrive en octobre. (source) • P comme Pompe (00:46:51) : Quand on met une station essence en orbite. Une startup propose de mettre en orbite une station-service pour satelites. (source)

Whatever else the pundits are saying about the use of cyberattacks in the Ukraine war, Dave Aitel notes, they all believe it confirms their past predictions about cyberwar. Not much has been surprising about the cyber weapons the parties have deployed, Scott Shapiro agrees. The Ukrainians have been doxxing Russia's soldiers in Bucha and its spies around the world. The Russians have been attacking Ukraine's grid. What's surprising is that the grid attacks have not seriously degraded civilian life, and how hard the Russians have had to work to have any effect at all. Cyberwar isn't a bust, exactly, but it is looking a little overhyped. In fact, Scott suggests, it's looking more like a confession of weakness than of strength: “My military attack isn't up to the job, so I'll throw in some fancy cyberweapons to impress The Boss.” Would it have more impact here? We can't know until the Russians (or someone else) gives it a try. But we should certainly have a plan for responding, and Dmitri Alperovitch and Sam Charap have offered theirs: Shut down Russia's internet for a few hours just to show we can. It's better than no plan, but we're not ready to say it's the right plan, given the limited impact and the high cost in terms of exploits exposed. Much more surprising, and therefore interesting, is the way Ukrainian mobile phone networks have become an essential part of Ukrainian defense. As discussed in a very good blog post, Ukraine has made it easy for civilians to keep using their phones without paying no matter where they travel in the country and no matter which network they find there. At the same time, Russian soldiers are finding the network to be a dangerous honeypot. Dave and I think there are lessons there for emergency administration of phone networks in other countries. Gus Hurwitz draws the short straw and sums up the second installment of the Elon Musk v. Twitter story. We agree that Twitter's poison pill probably kills Musk's chances of a successful takeover. So what else is there to talk about? In keeping with the confirmation bias story, I take a short victory lap for having predicted that Musk would try to become the Rupert Murdoch of the social oligarchs. And Gus helps us enjoy the festschrift of hypocrisy from the Usual Sources, all declaring that the preservation of democracy depends on internet censorship, administered by their friends. Scott takes us deep on pipeline security, citing a colleague's article for Lawfare on the topic. He thinks responsibility for pipeline security should be moved from Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to (FERC), because, well, TSA. The Biden administration is similarly inclined, but I'm not enthusiastic; TSA may not have shown much regulatory gumption until recently, but neither has FERC, and TSA can borrow all the cyber expertise it needs from its sister agency, CISA. An option that's also open to FERC, Scott points out. You can't talk pipeline cyber security without talking industrial control security, so Scott and Gus unpack a recently discovered ICS malware package that is a kind of Metasploit for attacking operational tech systems. It's got a boatload of features, but Gus is skeptical that it's the best tool for causing major havoc in electric grids or pipelines. Also, remarkable: it seems to have been disclosed before the nation state that developed it could actually use it against an adversary. Now that's Defending Forward! As a palate cleanser, we ask Gus to take us through the latest in EU cloud protectionism. It sounds like a measure that will hurt U.S. intelligence but do nothing for Europe's effort to build its own cloud industry. I recount the broader story, from subpoena litigation to the CLOUD Act to this latest counter-CLOUD attack. The whole thing feels to me like Microsoft playing both sides against the middle.  Finally, Dave takes us on a tour of the many proposals being launched around the world to regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. I note that Congressional Dems have their knives out for face recognition vendor id.me. And I return briefly to the problem of biased content moderation. I look at research showing that Republican Twitter accounts were four times more likely to be suspended than Democrats after the 2020 election. But I find myself at least tentatively persuaded by further research showing that the Republican accounts were four times as likely to tweet links to sites that a balanced cross section of voters considers unreliable. Where is confirmation bias when you need it?     Download the 403rd Episode (mp3)    You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Whatever else the pundits are saying about the use of cyberattacks in the Ukraine war, Dave Aitel notes, they all believe it confirms their past predictions about cyberwar. Not much has been surprising about the cyber weapons the parties have deployed, Scott Shapiro agrees. The Ukrainians have been doxxing Russia's soldiers in Bucha and its spies around the world. The Russians have been attacking Ukraine's grid. What's surprising is that the grid attacks have not seriously degraded civilian life, and how hard the Russians have had to work to have any effect at all. Cyberwar isn't a bust, exactly, but it is looking a little overhyped. In fact, Scott suggests, it's looking more like a confession of weakness than of strength: “My military attack isn't up to the job, so I'll throw in some fancy cyberweapons to impress The Boss.” Would it have more impact here? We can't know until the Russians (or someone else) gives it a try. But we should certainly have a plan for responding, and Dmitri Alperovitch and Sam Charap have offered theirs: Shut down Russia's internet for a few hours just to show we can. It's better than no plan, but we're not ready to say it's the right plan, given the limited impact and the high cost in terms of exploits exposed. Much more surprising, and therefore interesting, is the way Ukrainian mobile phone networks have become an essential part of Ukrainian defense. As discussed in a very good blog post, Ukraine has made it easy for civilians to keep using their phones without paying no matter where they travel in the country and no matter which network they find there. At the same time, Russian soldiers are finding the network to be a dangerous honeypot. Dave and I think there are lessons there for emergency administration of phone networks in other countries. Gus Hurwitz draws the short straw and sums up the second installment of the Elon Musk v. Twitter story. We agree that Twitter's poison pill probably kills Musk's chances of a successful takeover. So what else is there to talk about? In keeping with the confirmation bias story, I take a short victory lap for having predicted that Musk would try to become the Rupert Murdoch of the social oligarchs. And Gus helps us enjoy the festschrift of hypocrisy from the Usual Sources, all declaring that the preservation of democracy depends on internet censorship, administered by their friends. Scott takes us deep on pipeline security, citing a colleague's article for Lawfare on the topic. He thinks responsibility for pipeline security should be moved from Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to (FERC), because, well, TSA. The Biden administration is similarly inclined, but I'm not enthusiastic; TSA may not have shown much regulatory gumption until recently, but neither has FERC, and TSA can borrow all the cyber expertise it needs from its sister agency, CISA. An option that's also open to FERC, Scott points out. You can't talk pipeline cyber security without talking industrial control security, so Scott and Gus unpack a recently discovered ICS malware package that is a kind of Metasploit for attacking operational tech systems. It's got a boatload of features, but Gus is skeptical that it's the best tool for causing major havoc in electric grids or pipelines. Also, remarkable: it seems to have been disclosed before the nation state that developed it could actually use it against an adversary. Now that's Defending Forward! As a palate cleanser, we ask Gus to take us through the latest in EU cloud protectionism. It sounds like a measure that will hurt U.S. intelligence but do nothing for Europe's effort to build its own cloud industry. I recount the broader story, from subpoena litigation to the CLOUD Act to this latest counter-CLOUD attack. The whole thing feels to me like Microsoft playing both sides against the middle.  Finally, Dave takes us on a tour of the many proposals being launched around the world to regulate the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems. I note that Congressional Dems have their knives out for face recognition vendor id.me. And I return briefly to the problem of biased content moderation. I look at research showing that Republican Twitter accounts were four times more likely to be suspended than Democrats after the 2020 election. But I find myself at least tentatively persuaded by further research showing that the Republican accounts were four times as likely to tweet links to sites that a balanced cross section of voters considers unreliable. Where is confirmation bias when you need it?     Download the 403rd Episode (mp3)    You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

The CLOUD Act, which allows US law enforcement to use a warrant or subpoena to compel U.S.-based technology companies to provide data stored on servers regardless of where the data is located, was first introduced in the United States in 2018. Canada and the US recently announced plans to negotiate a Cloud Act agreement which would ease cross-border disclosures of data between the two countries. David Fraser is a lawyer with McInnes Cooper in Halifax and one of Canada's leading privacy experts. He regularly acts for clients on data disclosure matters and was one of the first to highlight the negotiations and its implications on his Youtube channel. He joins the Law Bytes podcast to talk about the Cloud Act, how it might fit into Canada's privacy law framework, and how Canada should approach the negotiations. The podcast can be downloaded here, accessed on YouTube, and is embedded below. Subscribe to the podcast via Apple Podcast, Google Play, Spotify or the RSS feed. Updates on the podcast on Twitter at @Lawbytespod. Show Notes: Privacy Lawyer Blog, Canada – US Announce Beginning of CLOUD Act Negotiations United States and Canada Welcome Negotiations of a CLOUD Act Agreement Credits: Senator Orrin Hatch, Hatch Previews CLOUD Act

En fin de semaine, la CNIL (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés), a annoncé mettre en demeure des sites français qui utilisent Google Analytics. Selon elle, le transfert des données sur les serveurs de Google n'est pas suffisamment encadré, et enfreint le Règlement Général sur la Protection des Données (RGPD). Quelle conséquence cela aura-t-il sur Google, mais surtout, quelles conséquences cela aura-t-il pour les internautes ? C'est ce que je vous propose de voir dans cet épisode. Dans le détail, tout est parti de plusieurs plaintes de l'association NOYB (My Privacy is None of Your Business)… Enfin, plusieurs plaintes… 101 quand même au total, dans les 27 états membres de l'Union Européenne, ainsi que dans trois autres états de l'espace économique européen. Pour bien comprendre, il faut avoir à l'esprit que Google Analytics est devenu un outil très très utile pour les sites web puisqu'il permet de collecter des données sur les visiteurs, notamment les chiffres de fréquentation. Le problème, c'est que l'on parle ici de données personnelles, et que celles-ci sont donc transférées sur des serveurs de Google aux États-Unis… Autrement dit, il s'agit d'un véritable problème puisque les transferts de données entre l'Europe et les Etats-Unis sont en effet très très encadrés, et bien souvent interdits. Concrètement, la CNIL craint que les services de renseignements américains ne viennent fouiller dans ces données, notamment à cause du Cloud Act qui autorise les autorités à accéder à ces fameuses données hébergées par des entreprises américaines, peu importe le pays dans lequel se trouvent les serveurs. D'après les observateurs les plus avisés, l'utilisation de Google Analytics par un site européen ne respecterait donc pas l'article 44 du RGPD. Dans un communiqué, la CNIL annonce avoir mis en demeure le gestionnaire d'un site français et lancé des procédures contre d'autres. Ce sont donc de nombreux sites qui seront bien inspirés de trouver une autre alternative pour gérer leurs statistiques… chose qui est loin d'être aisé tant Google Analytics est tout simplement l'un des meilleurs outils existants dans ce domaine. Voir Acast.com/privacy pour les informations sur la vie privée et l'opt-out. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Cloud Act is a 2018 set of regulations that impact enterprise and network security. How is it important to CISOs, enterprises, and organizational security? The team looks at: What is the Cloud Act? CISO experiences with the Cloud Act How we are helping customers with Cloud Act challenges

Our News Roundup is hip deep in China stories. The inconclusive EU-China summit gives Matthew Heiman and me a chance to explain why France understands—and hates—China's geopolitical trade strategy more than most. Maury Shenk notes that the Pentagon's reported plan to put a bunch of Chinese suppliers on a blacklist is a bit of a tribute to China's own list of sectors not open to Western companies. In other China news, Matthew discloses that there's reason to believe that China has finally begun to use all the U.S. personnel data it stole from OPM. I'm so worried it may yet turn my hair pink, at least for SF-86 purposes. And in a sign that it really is better to be lucky than to be good, Matthew and I muse on how the Trump Administration's China policy is coinciding with broader economic trends to force U.S. companies to reconsider their reliance on Chinese manufacturing. It's not all China, though. To kick things off, Nick Weaver and I schadenfreude our way through an otherwise serious take on the Julian Assange story and its strikingly narrow Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charge—and why extradition is likely to be a pain. We also delve into the Google Sensorvault story. Nick and I agree that law enforcement access to location data, especially under the conditions set by Google, isn't much of a privacy scandal, at least compared to private access to the same data. But that doesn't mean it won't raise endless legal problems for all concerned, partly because asking for a warrant out of the box isn't quite the right legal or privacy framework. Pete Jeydel notes two examples of CFIUS's new toughness: It's forcing a Russia-linked firm to sell stake in a cybersecurity company, and it has handed out a $1 million fine to a company that blew off its obligations under a mitigation agreement. Maury covers the German data protection commissioner's refusal to let German police store data in the Amazon cloud. The commissioner blames the CLOUD Act and the risk that US authorities may get cross-border access to the data. I flag the commissioner for hypocrisy and ignoring international law. Turns out that the Justice Department has a good new whitepaper out on the CLOUD Act, and it points out that remote access to offshore data has been an implicit part of the Budapest Convention since the ‘90s.  Returning once more to China, Maury and I touch on the Chinese government's use of AI to find Uighurs in crowds of Han Chinese. In my view, the only thing surprising about this story is that the New York Times thinks we should be surprised by it.   Download the 259th Episode (mp3). You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!  As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!   The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.