Microsoft briefly turned off Indian company’s cloud, perhaps due to EU sanctions on Russia Microsoft disconnected Indian company Nayara Energy from its cloudy resources last week, before restoring access ahead of a court clash. This story starts on July 18th when the European Union approved a fresh set of sanctions aimed at making it harder for Russia to continue its war against Ukraine. Deep in the fine print of …
Nayara Energy protested the sanctions in a strongly-worded statement that asserts “This unilateral move by the European Union is founded on baseless assertions, representing an undue extension of authority that ignores both international law and the sovereignty of India.”
TRANSLATED
yes we trade with russia
we don't care about war in europe (despite being punished by a war in europe previously history repeating itself)
Indians care about our profits
Americans have this to say.... errrr
feck that
cut them off Microsoft you gutless wonders you have no morals nor legality to be trading with those that trade with Russian State
Do Europeans ever care about wars in South Asia (or Africa, or anywhere outside Europe and North America).
What exactly did Europeans do about Operation Searchlight or the Sri Lankan civil war (apart from allowing a terrorist group to raise funds in the west until 9/11 made the west decide that terrorism was a bad thing). I was pretty close to some bombs in the latter BTW. What did Europe do about the Rwandan genocide or Effacer le tableau?. What is Europe doing about the Uygur or Rohinga genocides?
Te European attitude seems to be we are special and important so we expect the world to care about our wars, but we do not care about what happens to funny coloured people in the rest of the world. Are you surprised that the rest of the world responds with a big F*** you? Sorry, EU, you do not have the clout European empires did, so the rest of the world can tell you to get lost and there is nothing you can do about it.
I stopped reading at the word Uygur and started doubting every example mentioned before.
Mixing truth and lies compromises the whole thing. It's like adding a small tea spoon of sh*t into a full barrel of orange marmalade, it turns everything into sh*t.
Too bad because you might have had said some interesting things that I could agree with.
To use your analogy, the original poster said "what are they going to do about people beating their wives"
To which he replied "I was with you up until this point"
Which would therefore make the reply "when did you stop beating your wife" mildly applicable, no?
Or to be more direct, the OP said "What is Europe doing about the Uygur or Rohinga genocides".
These are well documented, yet the replier accused him of lying - therefore he's a genocide denier.
Now, you may argue that someone who denies facts doesn't support the act, just thinks it doesn't exist, but that level of delusional denial is actually an act of support
"Te European attitude seems to be we are special and important so we expect the world to care about our wars, but we do not care about what happens to funny coloured people in the rest of the world. Are you surprised that the rest of the world responds with a big F*** you? Sorry, EU, you do not have the clout European empires did, so the rest of the world can tell you to get lost and there is nothing you can do about it."
Replace EU with UK or USA and your paragraph reads exactly the same. People don't give a damn about war, until they get tank treads across their own front lawn.
> Do Europeans ever care about wars in South Asia (or Africa, or anywhere outside Europe and North America).
The problem here is that if Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, by his stated aims he won't stop there...and then it will be too late for the rest of Europe to do anything about it.
We can hope this would be a wake-up call to those who integrate everything into the Microsoft ecosystem without any seeming thought on the matter, and therefore encourages them to explore alternative providers and reduce reliance on just one vendor.
...
Of course not!
It was needed that Microsoft proved that anything your company relies on which is tied to Microsoft's services can and will be turned off at the whim of Microsoft or by them being instructed to do so via an executive order. Let's hope this starts to focus some minds here at the CTO level in Europe.
US Cloud Services? Just say NO!
Whilst I agree, at least using a local cloud provider means you are only at the whims of your own government, the ISP, the network provider, the cloud company.... but not someone elses government (oh, unless they surrender to a foreign countries demands to avoid tariffs and stuff).
Slightly better(!)
This fragment from the article should serve well to underline the fact that EU companies are being deceived by empty promises:
...leading hyperscalers like AWS, Microsoft, and Google to take steps to ensure their European operations are out of reach of American laws...
A company which is headquartered in the USA CANNOT put their EU operations out of reach of American laws. It's that simple. Every statement to that effect is dishonest.
Every statement to that effect is dishonest.
Of course it is, glaringly so.
And?
A good part of the problem is that Europe et al constantly pussyfoot with respect to this (and many other things), clearly showing that Chamberlain's lesson has indeed been forgotten.
Let's start by calling things by their names:
Every statement to that effect is dishonest utter bullshit and an insult our intelligence.
Polite?
Certainly not.
But neither is getting permanently shat upon.
.
"A company which is headquartered in the USA CANNOT put their EU operations out of reach of American laws"
The interesting situation in TFA seems to be illustrating that trying to follow this in respect of an Indian operation it isn't as simple as that as it can be challenged in the Indian court. I suppose the upshot of this is that MS will be spinning this along the lines of "see, your local law does protect you.".
In theory, the EU or UK arms of these US companies have to be incorporated in the jurisdiction they're operating in. So there is a UK Microsoft company, and a UK Google company. This is required for many purposes including tax and data protection, and if you deal with those regional companies, you should have some say about data location and protection according to your laws.
They are, however, normally wholly owned subsidiaries of the US holding company.
Again, in theory, if you are dealing with, say, the UK Microsoft company, they have to operate within UK law, and this should include data sovereignty and data protection.
But at this point, you have to ask, how independent are the UK companies?
I have worked for IBM UK in the UK several times over the last few decades, and the training for how the UK and US arms of IBM interact is very interesting. For some things, like GDPR, the training was very UK/EU oriented. But for things like ITAR (the export of US technology) it's very US oriented. But it is the UK law that was important whenever there was a conflict.
According to some of the training, it is possible to refuse access to data to anybody that in your opinion is not entitled to see the data, especially if it is security classified. But you have to defer (and often report) to your management chain if this happens, which means that they can override your decision (but in this case, you should not be held liable for any data breach). But I've never been in a situation to test this (thank goodness).
In the case of things like AWS or other cloud providers, what really matters is the geographical location of the servers or storage that holds the data. If they're on US soil, then it matters not a jot whether the data is restricted, protected or merely covered by GDPR, data stored in the US can be access by Uncle Sam by them compelling the (US) company that operates the service to comply to US law. This is why certain government groups require regionalised storage of data within their legal jurisdiction. This is also true for many other companies such as China.
Things get more complicated if the data is located outside the US, because the law of the jurisdiction that they're located in should be supreme. But whether that is the case, I don't know. I know that Microsoft did at one time deny a request for the FBI (I think) to look at mail stored in a data centre in Ireland, but I seem to remember that there was some form of compromise negotiated.
The only really safe thing is to keep the data in data centres and on systems you totally control. Not sure how Windows 11/Server 2025 fits into this?
From a customer PoV ti would be safer to have the service provided by a locally owned franchisee set up under local law that allowed them to use the US company's IP under strictly hands-off terms. IOW if the USG tels MS (for isntance) that it can't provide Teams to LittleOldRightPondCo but LittleOldRightPondCo is actually dealing with RightPondFranchiseeCo then RightPondFranchiseeCo's use of MS's IP for Teams is subject to a contract that allows them to continue providing it to LittleOldRightPondCo unless the Right Pond giov also tells them not to.
>” In theory, the EU or UK arms of these US companies have to be incorporated in the jurisdiction they're operating in.”
This is the connection I didn’t get; surely this is Microsoft India disabling Nayara Energy‘s cloud services, presumably with the consent of Microsoft US.
Just because an EU sanctions order lists Nayara Energy, I don’t see a direct connection between that and the events Microsoft India, part of Microsoft APAC (HQ Singapore) initiated.
The EU lists Nayara Energy. Microsoft does business in the EU. The EU laws apply to Microsoft Ireland. If the cloud services paid for by Nayara are billed by Microsoft Ireland (we all know why), then Microsoft Ireland effectively does business with a company listed in the EU sanctions, and as such, Microsoft Ireland are breaking the law. And, as such, the EU can order Microsoft Ireland to be sanctioned themselves, either by fining them, or possibly freezing their (substantial) bank accounts.
That's your connection. Now, if Microsoft APAC is owned by Microsoft Inc directly and not via Microsoft Ireland, then it is still possible that Microsoft errs on the side of caution and blocks Nayara on the basis that doing business with sanctioned entities is a no-no because it can get you in big trouble with not just Uncle Trumpet but also the EU. Again, there's your connection.
It may be small, but when you're shuffling billions around, it can get expensive.
... at this point you have to ask, how independent are the UK companies?
Really?
If (like you say at this point) you have to ask, then you don't have the slightest idea as to what is going on.
Bottom line:
US corporations are exactly that, US corporations.
And when* push comes to shove (which these days has a very delicate trigger point), they will act accordingly.
* yes, it reads 'when', not 'if'.
.
I find your comment itself unclear. You make the comment "US corporations are exactly that, US corporations".
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that because they are in the US they are legally separate entities? Or ore you saying that because they're US companies, they are automatically overreaching their boundaries? Either of these are valid interpretations of what you said.
The cross border protections of things like GDPR-UK or the Official Secrets Act will make anybody in the UK criminally responsible for data leaks in breach of these acts. Just because a US holding company tells someone working for their UK subsidiary in the UK to provide data, that does not stop it being a crime. This may irk the US holding company, but in reality, it is down to the person in the UK to decide whether they are going to break the law.
Peter, the US judicial system is one big boundary overreach. You merely touch anything from the US... whether you do business there, do business with someone from there, do business in their currency, practically so much as *breathe* in their direction, and the US judicial view is that you fall under their jurisdiction and they demand their pound of flesh when it suits them.
As much as Microsoft UK is a company incorporated in the UK, has UK directors etc, it is *owned* by Microsoft Inc. That means, by the view of the US judicial system, *their* rules apply on the basis that Microsoft Inc controls Microsoft UK. The US generally doesn't give a flying monkey's about UK law, or what UK law says. Just look at those who were speedily handed over to the US for prosecution for something that is/was not a crime in the UK (read traders who set interest rates amongst themselves).
GDPR-UK? "Our laws trump yours"
Official Secrets Act? "Our laws trump yours"
Of course, it takes a Home Secretary or a Foreign Secretary with backbone to turn around to any US official demanding we roll over at their command and say "Piss off. Your laws do not apply here, and they don't apply to any UK entity that does not do business with you as a government."
Why would anyone want to place critical infrastructure or business systems into a service which cannot be controlled in extremis? One for which another business in another nation could switch off or control access to data. If I was CEO of a corporation or a bureaucrat running government I would only use cloud for trivial systems or where I had a backup fully under my control.
Conspiracy Section:
Does no one else wonder why our "leaders" continue to make decisions that place our nation in a vulnerable position regardless of which party they are a member of? That they pass laws that reduce our rights and freedoms claiming they make us "safe" and that they make the choice that we need to be "safe". That "safe" always seems to involve reduction of freedom whilst corruption and bad stuff still increases?
>> Why would anyone want to place critical infrastructure or business systems into a service which cannot be controlled in extremis?
Yes, most people and businesses are either mad or stupid. Look at how many use Google docs without thinking about how they're sharing their business (and personal) info with google.
"The first hit is free" said every pusher.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
