ie8 fix

Defense giant ditches Microsoft’s cloud citing Patriot Act fears

By | December 7, 2011, 1:30am PST

Summary: BAE Systems has pulled the plug on a proposed outsourcing mission to Microsoft’s Office 365 cloud solution, after data sovereignty could not be guaranteed.

London-based defence contractor BAE has reportedly bailed on plans to adopt Microsoft’s Office 365 cloud-based service, citing fears that critical defence secrets could land in U.S. hands.

Speaking during a panel debate at the Business Cloud Summit 2011 in London this week, one of the company’s executive said that it could not guarantee that the company’s data would not leave Europe.


(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Charles Newhouse, BAE’s head of strategy and design, highlighted the controversial U.S. Patriot Act as one of the reasons why the defence giant could not move to a public cloud-based offering.

At Microsoft’s Office 365 launch in London in June, Microsoft UK’s managing director Gordon Frazer admitted to ZDNet that “no company”, including the software giant, could guarantee that cloud-stored data will not leave Europe under any circumstances; including under a Patriot Act request.

This comes amid changes to the European Data Protection Directive, which will enact changes to prevent the U.S. from exploiting the flaws in the current law.

As Computer Weekly highlighted, large industries have strict policies on data protection, along with where the data is stored. Particularly for a major global arms giant such as BAE, a company that sells weaponry and defence solutions with a variety of governments around the world, putting even innocuous data in the cloud can reveal business and industry secrets.

Talking about data security and the location of that data, Newhouse said:

“A number of high profile outages that users have suffered recently demonstrated just how little control you actually have. When it all goes horribly wrong, you just sit there and hope it is going to get better.

I was on a study tour recently, and 85 percent of European companies out on that, now cite international regulations being their major issue. Everyone was ‘on about’ the U.S. Patriot Act, saying that the geo-location of that data and who has access to that data is the number one killer for adopting to the public cloud at the moment.

We had these wonderful conversations with Microsoft where we were going to adopt Office 365 for some of our ‘unrestricted’ stuff, and it was all going to be brilliant. I went back and spoke to the lawyers and said, “It’s Ireland” [the datacenter], and should that fail, then it will go to Holland. And the lawyers asked what happened if they lose Holland?”

The European Commission expects to reveal the next version of its data laws next month.

Meanwhile, Sophie in ‘t Veld, Dutch MEP and vice-chair of the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee, warns that European businesses cannot wait years for the draft bill to be ratified and enacted in the 27 member states of the European Union.

in ‘t Veld said that emergency legislation will be proposed as efforts to patch the flaw in the current directive, to protect European data from unauthorised U.S. inspections.

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit. Details of which are restricted, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

87
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Yes, but...
John L. Ries 8th Dec
@JimWillette
...the name itself was a clever way of implying that anyone who would oppose the act for any reason wasn't a "USA Patriot" (definitely not then Atty Gen. Ashcroft's finest hour). "Patriot Act" is good enough for most purposes, as it is generally understood what is meant.

And yes, any long, complicated bill drafted and passed in a big hurry (which this one was) is bound to have lots of unintended consequences.
BAE making sense? shocked that's a first!
@wright_is

Given that BAE is a major contractor for the US Government, performing TONS of defense work, I don't understand why they'd be looking at a cloud storage solution in the first place. Much of the work they do is classified and should NEVER be stored in the cloud.
@PollyProteus i find it hard to believe they care when it is the defense contractors and the banks who own everything and own the US government and write this legislation throught their think tanks and round table groups, there all one in the same, bae and microsoft ,both war profiteers ,1 from the civilian industrial complex, one from the military industrial complex, both owned by mega banks who are writing the legislation and who have the same globalist agenda,and the move to cloud computing will be a nightmare for freedom,free speech, and the consumer, lets resist this now, they dont even want it for themselves but its fine when they are planning on shoving it down our throat ,or soon will be ever more agressivly, till they have total control over all content and end all "fair use" and free speech and own all your data,and charge you tier based fees for everything, every single time you play an mp3, or watch a video, or use an app or play a game you will be charged,no more unlimited licences ,this will all end in tears for us all, mark my words,resist the cloud
0 Votes
+ -
@PollyProteus .. Exactly right
thx-1138_@... Updated - 8th Dec
What's amazing is some would sensationalize this to make it sound like MS is to blame for the outcome. BAE took the stupid path to begin with and (fortunately) ended by stopping short of signing their own death warrants.

BAE's case, is of bad managment *even* contemplating 'floating' highly confidential, industrially sensitive data at Cloud-level. That just speaks of pathetic mismanagement and poor oversight on the part of BAE.

This is the whole problem when you have paper pushing upstarts in control of big corporations and enterprise: they've replaced due diligence and feasibility studies with latte and martini sessions for deciding the fate of their company's all important trade secrets (and related, critical data).

In all honesty, BAE would do well to be looking for a new CEO & probably CIO, as the current monkeys obviously show no clue in having 'seriously contemplated' putting BAE's future on the line by considering outsourcing material / sensitive communications that never, ever should have been considered for the Cloud to begin with.

How they are trying to pin this on MS is laughable. As Gordon Frazer correctly stated, no U.S. company providing Cloud-based hosting solutions - including MS, could possibly guarantee that cloud-stored data will be 100% fixed within a certain, single jurisdiction. Go ahead Zack, ask any Cloud provider if they'll write a cloud hosting contract guaranteeing as much ... good luck with that.

This case is just the tip of the iceberg; there's alot that Cloud providers are reticent about discussing with potential Clients - and this demonstrates the Cloud is far from the perfect panacea it's junky proponents make it out to be.
@boston2376 That's the best example I've heard so far against the cloud. When I tell people that I'm against it, they look at me like I have a tin foil hat on.

Microsoft can't secure a desktop OS. What makes people think their cloud will be any different.
@PollyProteus

I agree. Any entity that stores Secret data in the cloud is . . . stupid.

But what I also found really silly was the comment "85 percent of European companies out on that, now cite international regulations being their major issue. Everyone was 'on about' the U.S. Patriot Act". The Patriot act allows US Law Enforcement to gain access to data that is in the US. The Patriot act does not govern how the CIA, or the NSA, gains access to data from around the world.

If some company in Belgium (or France or Span or etc. . . ) is worried that the Patriot act will allow the US Government to gain access to data concerning brassier sales (or bread sales, or etc. . .) then they have muddled thinking. The US Justice department or the FBI does not care much about those things and even if they gain access to the data, what horrific things will they do with it?

The CIA on the other hand may be interested in such things if the CIA thinks that those companies are laundering money for terrorists but the CIA is not bound by the Patriot act because the CIA does not work domestic in the US (by law they are not allowed to work domestic. Domestic is FBI). The CIA works covertly overseas. Those outside of the US who are concerned about the Patriot act should look up the definition of the word ???covertly???. If that word offends those in the rest of the world, those who are offended should remember that many governments have covert ops, not just the US.
Big companies will not make that move. It's not just BAE. Lots of companies have similar concerns.
YOu people must have missed this part.

"We had these wonderful conversations with Microsoft where we were going to adopt Office 365 for some of our ???unrestricted??? stuff"
@wright_is "...citing fears that critical defence secrets could land in U.S. hands."...Which really means defense secrets would land in Israel's hands
This is the last defence of IT dinosaurs - vendors and customers alike - who try to find restrictive, bureaucratic, anti-business, anti-wealth creation, anti-innovation laws and decrees to hide behind - and cling on to the data centre and non-value-adding jobs. Of course, government and defence will be the last bastion of 'stakes in perpetuity' as Nicholas G Carr called it. David Cameron needs to crush this EU law - and remove one more foundation of the brain-dead, business-as-usual IT industry.
@XceliantBear David Cameron needs to crush the unconstitutional and unpatriotic Patriot Act.

It is irrelevant what the EU law is. I am not going to host my data on a service which will a) hand it over to a third party without a court order and b) not telling me, that hey have handed over the data!
@wright_is Cameron can do very little. All the UK government can do is ratify the EU changes when they are eventually signed into law.
@XceliantBear
So EU law and Europeran companies need to comply to US Patriot Act?
No wonder the rest of the world doesn't like Americans.
@Samic
With all due respect, you have it backwards. It's the US company, Microsoft, who has to comply. The travesty known as the Patriot Act, foisted upon us by the U.S. Congress requires that Microsoft (or any U.S. company) provide data in their possession under certain (not well understood by me) circumstances. Whether that data originated outside of the U.S. is irrelevant to the Feds.

The only thing that could be done is a treaty with the U.S. guaranteeing data privacy (which will never happen) or trade restrictions in Europe which will prevent corporations from doing business there if they can't protect the data. This will effectively block all cloud service providers in the U.S. from doing business in the EU.

Yeah, that's my Congress. Enacting overarching laws out of fear with no regard to the consequences for U.S. commerce and no understanding of technology all for the 10 second sound bite to say "I support Patriotism and National Security!" Meanwhile of course, any of us who actually use our brains know that the laws in question do nothing to promote either Patriotism or National Security. My fellow American voters don't like to think that hard, though. (sigh)

Sorry, getting down off the soapbox now. But the end is the same, it's Microsoft's potential complicity (errr ... "legal compliance") with the Patriot Act that causes the issue, not anything on the EU side of the equation.
@Samic

It is my personal belief that it is that way with many countries. Just the Patriot Act is in the open and gets really noticed due to the (relatively) open nature of the US Govt that it is more out in the open versus being closed off. Better or worse? No clue, but I'm not a Patriot Act fan myself...

Something kinda similar - the EU passed ROHS and the standardized micro-usb charger. Both bits of legislation then took effect the US by default without any US laws being passed. Quebec passed laws on French being on all packaging, which leads to packaging in Texas being in English and French, instead of English and Spanish of which there are much more Spanish speaking people in the US (and Texas in particular) than French but we get French packaging anyway... I find those mostly non-harmful ones amusing personally.

The whole planet is connected at this point, so laws in one country always have consequences internationally.
@Samic

Really? While I have problems with the PA, I don't care one whit if the rest of the world LIKES Americans.

Once we start down the path of crafting laws and treaties so that we are more popular then we have lost our sovereignty. In effect it becomes a slow but steady erosion. Evenutally globalism, todays newest religion, will dominate the world.

At the point where the world's population is controlled by the interest of a few in power what are we left with?

Do you really think this is a stretch?
@macadam gimmie a break willl ya this is probably all theater anyways, your congress did not write the patriot act ,microsoft, bae,other military industrial complex defense contractors and mega banks wrote that legislation , and before 9-11 too, the congress in the US dont even get to read the bills let alone write them , all they do is sign them,they are written by who i just named as well as american an anglo british oligarchs like rothschilds,rockerfellers etc, through there, think tanks, ngo's, non profits, round table groups etc.. theses are all the same people with the same sick agenda of war profiteering etc, that are supposedly fighting over this, and "patriot act" is just more NLP-neuro linguistic programming and propaganda brainwashing, that is transparent as crystal, we know there is nothing in there a patriot would agree with,its a neo nazi fascist piece of legislation ,and cloud computing will turn out be a nightmare for all of us end users and consumers,everyone need to stand up say no to cloud computing ,its a huge lie being perpetrated on us for more spying and more control over you and your data and a way to bill and tax you and all content and everything else, NIGHTMARE ,we will all regret it if this goes ahead to the level it is planned to i fear
@macadam

Notice what XceliantBear was saying. He said "David Cameron needs to crush this EU law - and remove one more foundation of the brain-dead, business-as-usual IT industry."

So no, I didn't say US company like microsoft doesn't need to comply. I'm say EU doesn't need to comply to a law that was drafted by US and applied to US. If that policy doesn't compatible with EU and cause US company loss a sale, it's not EU fault. We're basically on the same side.
@XceliantBear
You don't make any sense. You have several over-utilized keywords thrown together, but no coherent message.
0 Votes
+ -
As one of "The Observers"
thx-1138_@... 8th Dec
@XceliantBear ... of course you'd say that; wanting unbridled access to all data, everywhere.

Will you go on and trap yourself in amber already?
0 Votes
+ -
Countries that depend on Microsoft for computing is a huge security blunder.
@root12
are making a huge security blunder.

plain
I've been saying this since the "cloud craze" started. People with data they want protected will not put it in the cloud, period. If the data is on the servers at BAE's offices then they'll know if the US government comes knocking looking for information and for most of BAE's operations they'll have a hard time accessing it outside their jurisdiction. If it is in the cloud they'll be completely in the dark that the US government has their data at all.

And, frankly, many people won't be able to put that data in the cloud for simple NDA reasons or security clearance reasons. Yes, a simple NDA can stop you from putting your data in the cloud. By putting it in the cloud you're technically sharing it with people outside your company. If the other party to the NDA objects you won't have much ground to stand on. The cloud company doesn't, as a rule, have its employees poking around reading your data ... but they could and you wouldn't know. That alone could violate an NDA if a company gets sticky about it.

Makes perfect sense and will continue to make perfect sense until things return to normal .... needing a court order served on the company that owns the data.
@Ididar I think its just wrong to add another possible secuirty problem by using a third party for cloud storage. No matter if its Microsoft or someone else. The point is why trust a outside source to manage important documents?
@jscott418

Not only that, but access too.

Your 'cloud' service provider is typically a 'for profit' company; and you do not know which and how many corners they cut, 'in order to keep costs down'.

Then, consider what happens in the event they go bust, who now has possession of your data?? What about the fallout from a billing dispute, are you willing to risk your data being held hostage until any disputed amounts are paid??

What happens if your internet connection goes down, or you are unable to connect to your data??

It is probing questions like these that we (in IT) have ready for the wet behind the ears MBA wanna-bes who spout "cloud" at the executive level. And, every one of them went down like the Hindenburg (i.e. in flames). Fools never learn.
0 Votes
+ -
@fatman65536 ... I'm with you
thx-1138_@... Updated - 9th Dec
" ... It is probing questions like these that we (in IT) have ready for the wet behind the ears MBA wanna-bes who spout "cloud" at the executive level. And, every one of them went down like the Hindenburg (i.e. in flames). Fools never learn. "

... when are you running for office? 'cause you'd get my vote.
Yeah, this is really more a cloud issue than a Patriot Act issue (and I'm no fan of the Patriot Act). The things they're concerned about (outages, data loss, unauthorized access to their data) are all cloud problems, not Office 365 or Patriot Act specific problems. And Badgered hits the nail right on the head by pointing out that any other company either based in the United States or which does business in the United States is subject to the same Patriot Act regulations that Microsoft are.
@swmace
I'm afraid I have to disagree here. While the outage and data loss problems may be cloud specific the main concerns reported in this article are about the security of the data. This is 100% a Patriot Act issue and anyone in Europe thinking about using a US company for cloud computing has good reason to be concerned.
@MoTechGuy, the PA openly admits the data may be subject for review. Is there a guarantee data on a cloud managed from another country is secure? Perhaps they just won't disclose when that security is breached. The point is, putting sensitive data on a public cloud is not ideal for any security conscious entity.
That is one strike against the cloud. This concern was brought up many times before when people were saying move to the cloud. If you want 100% privacy keep it in house although that's not a guarantee either if the government wants to get a search warrant.
@Loverock Davidson-
At least if they show up with a search warrant you know a judge looked at it. As well, then you at least know what they took and can take your lawyers to court with you to fight use of that data. You have options.
@Ididar

Bingo.

I'll add my opinion for the Defence industry - it is critical to maintain their own clouds in house, on premise. Use contractors where necessary, but make sure the data stays with YOU and you're the one that OWNs the premises and equipment. Otherwise, who knows where it potentially went? If that means having Microsoft in house to manage it, fine, but don't go 100% cloud with it off-site where US laws could compel MS to comply with Patriot. (BTW - I live in the US. Sovereignty is an issue regardless when you outsource part of the data center to "the cloud". If I have data offsite, then I've got new laws to comply with depending on the company and data center location(s). This is true even between US States where different laws can apply, much less between different countries where laws can vary even more wildly.)
0 Votes
+ -
One of many problems with the Patriot Act
use_what_works_4_U 7th Dec
@Loverock Davidson-
One of many problems with the Patriot Act is that a warrant may not even be required and if the data is deemed to be a National Security matter the customer may not be informed because the entire action can be Classified leading to jail time for anyone at the provider who says anything.

That all being said, you are absolutely right about keeping the data in house for added security. If you are a U.S. company though, a national security investigation may still cancel the need for a warrant.
@macadam

That is one of the biggest problems with the Patriot Act and I don't know why people haven't challenged that on Fourth Amendment grounds.
@macadam

National security may not require the warrant ... but at least you'll know and your lawyers can start making noise, publicly and/or privately.
0 Votes
+ -
@macadam .. But the inhouse option
thx-1138_@... Updated - 8th Dec
" ... If you are a U.S. company though, a national security investigation may still cancel the need for a warrant. "

... is far 'n away the lesser of the two evils. At least with localized data stores, a company gets to oversee and keep a staffer present while information is being accessed by investigators acting under the PA.

So, again, localized data-centers win this argument versus "Cloud marketing" (and related, corporate 'buzz words') every time.
That photo seems a tad wrong...?
@GP101 Good spot. I couldn't find a decent graphic -- it had to do.
0 Votes
+ -
This is the reason...
Joe_Raby Updated - 7th Dec
why they have this thing called "Private Cloud".
@Joe_Raby

Wait a minute, isn't that what we used to call a 'server'????
@mtdoonmeister

No, it's a room full of servers!
0 Votes
+ -
Ha! It just proves how full of it
thx-1138_@... Updated - 8th Dec
@mtdoonmeister these, so called "experts in Cloud Governance and SaaS" are .. the very same types who were abject failures in I.T. trying to get some twisted, bitter revenge on the 'real I.T' fraternity that built the City to begin with.

The laughing joke that gets me about these (to quote fatman65536) "MBA" types and low level VP's is that the more they spin their bulls#!t .. the more they actually believe it (i.e. their own pathetic lies). Go figure!

@Joe_Raby .. Snap out of it, wake up and smell the coffee! You just fell hook, line 'n sinker for the oldest snake charm trick in the book: selling something to you, that you already own (a la 'selling ice to Eskimos').
0 Votes
+ -
Simple really
use_what_works_4_U 7th Dec
@OhTheHumanity
Microsoft is a U.S. corporation and thus subject to U.S. law. That's all there is to it. If you do business here, you have to follow the laws here in as much as they pertain to your U.S. business. If you incorporate here you have to follow all the laws here regardless of where your customer is.

The fact that the law in question is a heaping, steaming, pile of "stuff" is irrelevant.

Ultimately if the P.A. is not repealed or drastically modified U.S. corporations will be shut out of foreign markets and the nation that the Act "protects" will suffer.
0 Votes
+ -
Why?
use_what_works_4_U 7th Dec
Why would any corporation entrusted with national secrets for ANY nation be allowed to store their data on a third party solution provided by a foreign corporation? The fact that BAE even considered doing this smacks of bad business practice.
0 Votes
+ -
Makes sense to me. Glade someone in Defense knows how to protect information.
Nice Anti-MS Link bait.

How about this for a title...

"EU Defence Gaint wont use any US owned cloud service"

Then maybe actually state that this would impact Google as well.

What is so ironic is that the EU wants us to let them try our troops for war crimes but they dont want to use a US cloud service.................EFFF THEM!!!!
@JeveSobs I agree with your first point, but the second is a bit like saying they want to prosecute the Mafia but not buy Jack Daniels
0 Votes
+ -
This isn't a SJVN article..
daftkey Updated - 7th Dec
@JeveSobs

Zack isn't known for being over-zealously anti-MS or pro-Google as others in ZDnet. I wouldn't have chalked this up as an anti-MS click-bait rant.

What is so ironic is that the EU wants us to let them try our troops for war crimes but they dont want to use a US cloud service.................EFFF THEM!!!!

Invading a sovereign country with neither provocation or threat - sounds like a war crime to me. Of course, being that the Americans are above international law (in their minds), everything is just hunky-dory.

Regardless, these are all decisions ultimately due to the short-term thinking of your current (and past) gub-ments and the people who voted for them..

This isn't an EU problem, this is a US problem, and it starts with "You the people" who continue to let yourselves be fooled into thinking you live in "the land of the free".
@daftkey "Invading a sovereign country with neither provocation or threat"???

Please let me know when that happens.

I bet you belive that 9/11 was a hoax as well.

They want us to abide by their new laws...but dont want abide by ours?
@JeveSobs

I don't believe 9/11 was a hoax any more than you believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by Iraq (assuming you don't swallow EVERY "news" story Fox throws at you at face value. A stretch, I know.)

This article isn't about "they" want "us" to abide by "their" laws etc. They just want to protect their data from people who really have no business accessing it. Unfortunately, that means that the data cannot touch US soil, because US law requires that data to be available to people who have no business accessing it.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, but...
John L. Ries 8th Dec
@JimWillette
...the name itself was a clever way of implying that anyone who would oppose the act for any reason wasn't a "USA Patriot" (definitely not then Atty Gen. Ashcroft's finest hour). "Patriot Act" is good enough for most purposes, as it is generally understood what is meant.

And yes, any long, complicated bill drafted and passed in a big hurry (which this one was) is bound to have lots of unintended consequences.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix