Your home country can tell you "Give us your data" and you have to comply.
"I will never give up customer data" is a very tough promise to keep, if the government threatens you with your business license being revoked, your servers and domains being forcibly seized by the police, and you personally going to jail.
(Under the current US administration, we can add "A close examination of the immigration status of all foreign nationals employed by your company, followed by probable deportation or jail" to the list of potential consequences for resisting the government.)
There's also an open question of how possible it is to run a system that doesn't collect/store data in a way that makes it possible to be collected by the government. The US government can force companies to compromise their systems or shut down their services if they refuse. In the past they've even threatened that shutting down a service instead of compromising it could still get operators in legal trouble.
At this point anyone who wants to keep the US government out of their data should avoid using any US company.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2025/04/30/europea...
Not all countries have an equivalent to the USA CLOUD Act.
Not yet, anyway. Unfortunately, pretty much every country seems to be getting less and less open and free over time. Some are better than others, but it does feel like everyone is regrettably rowing in same direction.
Not according to both Amazon's and Microsoft's historic marketing materials. They have always claimed that data stored in your local jurisdiction is not accessible to law enforcement abroad. And the US judiciary initially agreed with that: https://petri.com/microsoft-wins-appeal-data-stored-abroad-s...
...which then led to the US CLOUD act and here we are, once again, proving that the past is alterable; just like Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
It seems the solution is ages old. Don't have the holding incorporated in an empire...
If you don't have a spine, sure
That's what US companies are seen as from a European perspective: Spineless and untrustable
It's a great sales argument for locally grown software though, so I'm not complaining :)
I've never understood this take. A lot of people were saying this sort of thing when Proton Mail turned over some user data to authorities in Europe a while back.
If you're running a tech company and run afoul of the law in some or another jurisdiction, it doesn't matter how much spine you think you have. When a group of men with guns, i.e. the police, shows up at your door and gives you the option of turning over some customer data or spending the next 10 years of your life in a steel cage, I'm betting that practically no one is going to choose the cage, spine or not.
The only way to keep user data safe is to not collect it in the first place.
That's what he would say if the company was under a gag order in the US. So I would take anything they say with a mountain of salt.
This make it less likely he's lying. It could be possible Microsoft France has a "rogue" employee system where a key person only obeys to Microsoft US orders rather than his French boss and French law. Then the boss can swear to the Senate that they're complying.
This is exactly the system the US Congress accused TikTok of having set up.
In practice the US HQ could mandate a security update that secretly uploads all data to the US but that's a whole other can of worms that I don't think anyone is ready to open.
"Every accusation is a confession" remains undefeated
Including certain contractual "standard"(1) agreements which would make some of their higher management _personally_ liable for undue data access even under Cloud act from the US!!!
(1) As in standard agreements for providers which store lawyer data, including highly sensitive details about ongoing cases etc.
So you can't really trust MS anymore at all, even if personal liability (e.g. lying under oath) is at stack. And the max ceiling for the penalties for lying under oath seem less then what you can run into in the previous mentioned case...
You also have to look a bit closer at what it even means if "the french MS CEO swears they are complying" it means he doesn't know about non compliance and did tell his employees to comply and hired someone to verify it etc.
But the US doesn't need the French CEO to know, they just need to gain access to the French/EU server through US employees, which given that most of the infra software is written in the US and international admin teams for 24/7 support is really not that hard...
And even if you want to sue the French CEO after a breach/he (hypothetically) lied he would just say he didn't because he also was lied too leading to an endless goose chase and "upsi" by now the French CEO somehow is living in the US.
And that is if you ever learn about it happening, but thanks to the US having pretty bad gag orders/secret court stuff the chance for that is very low.
So from my POV it looks like MS has knowingly and systematically lying and deceiving customer, including such with highly sensitive data, and EU governments about how "safe" the data is even if it lead to personal legal liabilities of management.
And I mind to remember that AWS was giving similar guarantees they most most likely can't hold, but I'm not fully sure. Idk. about Google.
Oh and if you hope that the whole Sovereign Cloud things will help, it wont. It's a huge mage pretend theater moving millions over millions into the hands of US cloud providers while not providing a realistic solutions to the problem it is supposed to solve and neglecting local competition which actually could make a difference, smh.
It's also possible that US employees had access to French servers without anyone in France knowing.
> It could be possible Microsoft France has a "rogue" employee system where a key person only obeys to Microsoft US orders rather than his French boss and French law.
I would think that is not just a possibility, but a certainty.
The interesting thing is that the US is acting in the exact way that they accuse China of acting. Companies like Huawei are forbidden from installing telecom infrastructure for "national security" reasons [1]. One of justifications for first banning then forcing a sale of Tiktok was because of possible Chinese government interference. It's only a matter of time before the EU and China start making the same determination against US tech giants (eg Meta executive brags about silencing dissent [2]).
This administration really is killing the golden goose.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/us-fcc-bans-e...
A better faith interpretation is that people are free to criticize Israel and Zionism on Meta, just not using racist tropes.
- Ben Shapiro excuses antisemitic remarks by Ann Coulter because she's pro-Israel [1];
- ADL defends Elon Musk for making the Nazi salute (twice) on stage [2]
- We brutalized people with the police for organizing peaceful protests to say "maybe we shouldn't bomb children" or to get their respective universities to divest their endowments from the state doing the bombing;
- We went so far as trying to deport legal permanent residents for organizing said peaceful protests (ie Mahmoud Khalil); and
- The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes criticisms of the state of Israel.
[1]: https://x.com/benshapiro/status/644505141299671041
[2]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/1/22/adl-faces-backlash-...
From the FAQ page I linked:
> In accordance with our Privacy Policy, OVHcloud will comply with lawful requests from public authorities. Under the CLOUD Act, that could include data stored outside of the United States. OVHcloud will consider the availability of legal mechanisms to quash or modify requests as permitted by the CLOUD Act.
It rarely makes economic sense to deploy workloads onto the public cloud unless you have critical uptime requirements or need massive elasticity.
(I work there.)
Every AWS employee knows where his bread is buttered - Seattle not Brussels
"If it's certified, it must be good".
If you do something that the EU doesn't like it's response will be relatively rational and proportional. While the US government is currently run by unpredictable and volatile people. So risk/reward wise it's rather obvious whose orders they will be following.
Then the next level is regulators in EU also have to care and can't just say "ok, you have a separate DC building with EU employees only. Good. My job is done, I checked" and move on.
s/U.S./Chinese/
Tomato <=> Tomato
This is actually amazing that all the tenders have not been rejected under national security grounds or simply security services (yet again) have not done the job tax payers pay them to do.
They should have arranged to get a 100 euro refund every time it happens, or 440 euros if the UK does it.
On top of that, the US can update it all remotely, including the hardware now thanks to things like intel ME.
Let's hope we never get into a conflict with them, because even without bombs, they can basically shut us down with a few keystrokes: https://www.bitecode.dev/p/the-eu-can-be-shut-down-with-a-fe...
Or at least have everything they need to develop such a capability. And it's not like the current people in power care much about alienating other countries.
Let's not be excessively alarmist; AFAIK, the Intel ME is not (unless you're using things like vPro) exposed directly to the network, you need the cooperation of the operating system to reach the ME.
Of course, said operating system is usually Microsoft Windows, which can be updated remotely... (and even Linux users often use USA-based distributions).
I would absolutely love to see the EU invest in developing processors and operating systems. It'd benefit us all to have real competition in those spaces, and it's the only way the EU can ever keep their data out of the hands of the US government.
The GDPR is incompatible with the Cloud Act, and so the only legal (or so it should be) way to use US companies is to treat them like unsafe third countries - no matter the data center location.
But everyone wants to continue like before. Having to ensure that Amazon and Azure never touches unincrypted personal data is hard. So one "compromise" after another has been tried - never solving the actual problem.
As a EU citizen I think it's entirely embarrassing. Either the EU should have the power to force European subsidiaries to be exempted from the cloud act, or everyone should be forced to abide the law, which would greatly boost EU tech. Instead we are just rolling over.
If they can make successful tax shelters they can architect the entities and the architecture to remove this option.
There's some 9-eyes thing where this is a feature not a bug
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._United_Stat...
At the same time a massive migration from US cloud in EU to EU cloud would be a massive pain for a lot of companies in the EU.
"Cloud" is not only for storage; it's also for compute. Doing compute directly on encrypted data (homomorphic encryption) is very slow and very complicated, so when using a cloud, the data is usually either unencrypted, or encrypted but the key is elsewhere in the same cloud.
I get that FHE is not realistic today, but can’t I use ( if it’s really critical) a combination of confidential vms and an external hsm ? I understand I’ll be limited to traditional workloads , and not managed services though.
I asked the wrong question, what I really meant was ‘if I run in a less trusted environment, am I not supposed to use all possible crypto mechanisms available to make that environment more trustworthy , so that I can’t be deceived by my cloud operator sending my data to the us government’
https://dirkjanm.io/obtaining-global-admin-in-every-entra-id...
I'm sure if you asked the current administration what they think of France, they'd reply, "all they do is wine!"
Crazy to even think that such a law exists.
