specialized Linux hosting question

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 02:26:19PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Paranoia is all well and fun, and I wouldn't want to discourage you
> from any such fun.
> 
> But it is also apropos to consider risks realistically.
> 
> Consider:
> - Irrespective of where you may choose to locate your servers, it will
> be necessary to get data onto and off of those servers.
> 
> - If those servers are not located close enough for you to have direct
> physical access, then it is unlikely that you will be able to transfer
> data without it passing over the Internet.
> 
> - If the data passes over the Internet, then you have little or no way
> of controlling whether or not the data transfer process takes routes
> that pass through the "United States of Paranoia."
> 
> - If that data passes thru the "United States of Paranoia," then those
> spooks are quite likely to have the ability to "snoop" through your
> data anyways.
> 
> It's all well and good to imagine that you are avoiding "Patriot Act"
> risks, but for that to actually be so has rather more stringent
> requirements than you are considering.

You can encrypt data in transport.  Working with it on your server on
the other hand may not be easy to do while it is encrypted.  That's
where control of access to the equipment matters.

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists