I wrote this on linkedin recently, even though it is about Microsoft, it feels prescient as ever:<p>Fuck, man. Imagine potentially losing a country because you couldn’t be bothered to host your own mail.<p>I’ve been banging on for at least a decade (to anyone who will listen) about how handing over every email, document, and operational process to US tech companies was a catastrophic strategic mistake.<p>Now Mr. Trump’s threatening tariffs against European <i>allies</i> for conducting military exercises… in their own territories... Suddenly everyone’s talking about “sovereign clouds” (btw: its still US tech giants, whom are beholden to the “CLOUD act”; which if you didn’t know: gives the US govt access to all of your data <i>winkwink</i>).<p>Funny how that works. Funny the timing of it.<p>I understand how it happened: CFOs saw Office 365 and saw “dollar signs”… cheaper IT, less compliance risk!! Heads of state saw American tech leadership and saw safety. IT professionals saw Microsoft certifications and saw career security. What we actually <i>bought</i> was dependence dressed up as convenience, and we’re now paying the bill with our negotiating position.<p>Sweden, like the rest of Europe, voluntarily put nearly every organisation’s communications, files, and operational data into American hands. We didn’t need to be invaded. We subscribed.<p>The US soft power here is monumental. Why bother with tanks when you already own the infrastructure we run our societies on?<p>We spent decades choosing comfort over sovereignty because we genuinely believed the post-Cold War order was permanent. Turns out “nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft” had a rather significant asterisk: unless geopolitics gets spicy again.<p>Surprise.<p>So what now? We can’t unwind a decade of procurement decisions overnight, but we can stop digging. Every new SaaS contract that puts European data on American infrastructure deepens the dependency. Every IT professional who specs another Microsoft solution without considering alternatives is choosing their CV over sovereignty.<p>If you’re a CTO, audit what you actually control versus what you’re renting from Redmond. If you’re in procurement, ask vendors where the data lives and who has jurisdiction. If you’re a developer, contribute to European open source alternatives instead of assuming American platforms are fate.<p>The hard times are here. The only way back to good ones is building our way out, one procurement decision at a time.<p>And if that sounds difficult or inconvenient? Good. We chose easy for a couple of decades. Now we do it the hard way.
It's AWS. Would it not still be subject to the CLOUD act? <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CLOUD_Act</a><p>Seems like a lot of work to still have data that can be exfiltrated by the US.
AWS EU reports to amazon.com in the USA. They are legally obligated to provide any data the US government requests.
> We’re gradually transitioning the AWS European Sovereign Cloud to be operated exclusively by EU citizens located in the EU. During this transition period, we will continue to work with a blended team of EU residents and EU citizens located in the EU.<p>I find it fascinating that the goal is to staff this exclusively with EU citizens, thereby excluding non-citizen residents of the EU.
It's a regulatory requirement:<p>> Replicating a broadly practiced mitigation mechanism that is established in EU institution and government hiring practices, operational control and access will be restricted to EU citizens located in the EU to ensure that all operators have enduring ties to the EU and to meet the needs of our customers and partners.<p>- <a href="https://www.aboutamazon.eu/news/aws/aws-european-sovereign-cloud-to-be-operated-by-eu-citizens" rel="nofollow">https://www.aboutamazon.eu/news/aws/aws-european-sovereign-c...</a>
It's similar to FedRAMP systems like AWS GovCloud (US), which can only be accessed by someone who is a US person (US citizen <i>or</i> lawful permanent resident) <i>and</i> on US soil (physically in the US at the time of access).
How sovereign is a data center owned by a US firm? What does sovereign mean in this context?
If Amazon is down in the US, would this work? The fact that they mention “any Amazon customer can access this” makes me think it’s intermingled / not cleanly separated and isolated from US infrastructure
AWS has the notion of "partitions", which is a technical boundary encompassing multiple regions. This mostly doesn't come up, but it does poke through in certain implementation details, like how AMI manifests for groups of regions (partitions) need to be encrypted for different public keys. Each partition has a specific region which must be targeted for certain partition-wide actions, such as managing IAM endpoints in other regions.<p><a href="https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/aws-fault-isolation-boundaries/partitions.html" rel="nofollow">https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/aws-fault-iso...</a><p>Normal AWS (`aws`) traces to `us-east-1`. AWS GovCloud (US) (`aws-us-gov`) is distinct, based in `us-gov-west-1`. AWS in China (`aws-cn`) is distinct again, based in `cn-north-1`.<p>The AWS European Sovereign Cloud is implemented as a distinct partition – `aws-eusc` based in `eusc-de-east-1` – so it has exactly as much in common with normal AWS as AWS GovCloud (US) or AWS in China.
The docs explicitly describe this cloud's independence from the US.<p>> The AWS European Sovereign Cloud will be capable of operation without dependency on global AWS systems so that the AWS European Sovereign Cloud will remain viable for operating workloads indefinitely even in the face of exceptional circumstances that could isolate the AWS European Sovereign Cloud from AWS resources located outside the EU, such as catastrophic disruption of transatlantic communications infrastructure or a military or geopolitical crisis threatening the sovereignty of EU member states.
From what I’m understanding, it won’t be dependent anymore on us-east-1, but this isn’t mentioned explicitly. This is great, especially if you consider that some cut cable in the ocean could literally turn off a big part of the companies in a whole continent.
> AWS European Sovereign Cloud is located in the state of Brandenburg, Germany, and is generally available today.<p>Appears to be in Massen:
<a href="https://www.lr-online.de/lausitz/finsterwalde/investition-in-massen-auf-diesen-flaechen-bei-finsterwalde-baut-amazon-78570099.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.lr-online.de/lausitz/finsterwalde/investition-in...</a>
Commission launches market investigations on cloud computing services under the Digital Markets Act
<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_2717" rel="nofollow">https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_25_...</a><p>> Two market investigations will assess whether Amazon and Microsoft should be designated as gatekeepers for their cloud computing services, Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure, under the DMA, in other words whether they act as important gateways between businesses and consumers, despite not meeting the DMA gatekeeper thresholds for size, user number and market position.
Dear smart people on HN, what do you make of this? I understand most of you are US based. Is that Amazon getting ready for serious trade war, US/EU?
EU, as a US citizen, go all in and ditch the US as much as you can. Not only will this bring competition, it also means that the US Government cannot grab the balls of Amazon and squeeze the EU market.<p>I wouldn't trust Amazon with my data if I was an EU citizen. As a US citizen I don't even trust Amazon with my own data. This is why I support de-Google, de-Microsoft, and de-Apple computing.
It is an attempt to not lose European customers that might be tempted to migrate to Europe-based solutions in the current political climate. In the event of a serious trade war (like you suggested) and/or a real war, it gives some assurances; which is smart based on the threats from the current unpredictable and authoritarian U.S. administration.<p>But it probably started as a way to comply with EU laws more easily, so it works on multiple levels.
How much can we trust this so-called sovereign cloud? That's a sincere question. I can't think of a more American company than Amazon, and I find it hard to believe that it could be completely independent from its American headquarters.<p>I really hope that Europe will get its act together rather than relying on this half-hearted solution.
They claim the "AWS European Sovereign Cloud represents a physically and logically separate cloud infrastructure, with all components located entirely within the EU" and that it operates entirely under German laws, but I think your skepticism is warranted.<p>I think Europe should push for its own solutions rather than fuel oligarchy/authoritarianism, if they are serious about their own security and preserving liberal values.
If you think deeply and logically, you will see that those text and even some legal details are just marketing that aims smart people. because in case of war or some serious conflict, they will be obeying the parent company and orders of usa government. see ICJ prosecutors and microsoft, you have real proof live, if you can connect some dots.
Physically separate infrastructure as well as local employees help to some extent. But it is not really sovereign cloud. There is no guarantee that employees would know if some commands are illegal. Plus parent company can fly anyone there if needed.
Not at all. Trump applies any leverage he can. "Nice US cloud you've got there... would be a shame if anything happened to it..."
It has already been discussed here a bit: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46640462">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46640462</a>