On 31 October 2013 16:49, Walubengo J <jwalu@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10/31/13, Phares Kariuki <pkariuki@gmail.com> wrote: We need to bring the latter back home simply because the US has proven it cannot be trusted… It’s not that the galvanised internet is the best option, it’s simply a compromise because some people have broken trust…
I totally agree. I am for local content, local hosting, local, local this and the other. What I find difficult to understand is the myth that once something is local, then it is safer.
Walu, not necessarily a myth, maybe a fallacy. If your classified data is out there with third party hosts, you have already given it away. You have no control on how it will be used, even with slogans like "don't be evil". :) On the other hand, if you have hosted your content, you are the master of your fate. Your competence will determine the security level you give your sensitive data. We need to be careful not to mix security with being local. Let us have two
independent tracks on the issues. Lets build local content to increase uptake, reduce latency, perhaps pricing, etc. But I would hate to imagine our NSIS director briefing our President that we are very secure because we have made all our ICT infrastructure local.
ICT Security is often discussed under CIA - Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (not central intelligence agency :-). I want to believe the geographic location of your data cannot save you, if your CIA procedures are poor. So if we want to be secure, lets put the emphasis where it should be.
walu. nb: Osama bin laden was as local and as manual as you can get. US folks still smoked him out.
______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh google ID | Skype ID: lordmwesh