I’m wondering when researchers at MIT are going to turn their attentions to the security problems inherent in the size and structure of buildings and cities?
It’s not widely known that, by studying architectural blueprints and familiarizing themselves with routine security processes typically followed by businesses, hackers could break into your offices and access highly sensitive data. Indeed, say researchers, it’s theoretically possible to download the entire contents of a corporate database onto a solid-state drive so small that it can be smuggled out of the building concealed in a back pocket. Yet most businesses remain blissfully unaware — some would say, wilfully negligent — of the ease with which their on-premise data can be compromised.
Meanwhile, there have been many examples of entire cities losing all access to computing functions after extended power blackouts because of a shared dependency on a single utility grid. Only a small proportion of businesses protect themselves against a total loss of computing capability by turning to cloud providers whose multi-geography infrastructures aren’t dependent on a single power supplier.
But we don’t read that. Instead, we have an article which is little more than a diatribe against the notion of relying on an expert provider to operate computing on your behalf. Except, that is, for a revealing passage halfway through, in which the author cites the case of an unnamed bank that, distrusting the cloud, has instead co-located its servers at “a nondescript data center in Somerville, MA … owned by a small company called 2N+1, which offers companies chilled floor space, security, electricity, and connectivity.” Unaware of the implicit irony, the writer concludes that the bank “chose to keep its own servers rather than hire a cloud. And for security, the bank chose the tangible kind: a steel fence.” Yes, because of course, cloud providers, as the name suggests, protect their facilities with dry ice and cotton wool, don’t they?
BRAVO!!
ShareThis
