Amazon AWS vs Google App Engine
nickmilon
to now all this talk was concentrated on technical and economic
issues.
News of Amazon throwing away the WikiLeaks website has raised new
arguments on the cloud battlefront.
So I want to raise here the hypothetical question what would be the
fate of WikiLeaks if it was hosted on App Engine ?
(For obvious reasons I do not expect a definite yes/no answer from
Google's team, but may be I am wrong)
Happy coding:-)
Nick
supercobra
However in this case, the pressure coming from the government must be
incredible. Amazon is not the only victim of these intimidations. US
government employees have been forbidden to visit Wikileaks sites and
to discuss these matters on Facebook. At least one US university has
been 'persuaded' to ask their students not to reference any Wikileaks
documents in their research papers... (how is that for doing thorough
research!).
Even crounties bend under US pressure. We have seen it to be the case
with Spain & Germany which dropped their lawsuits, investigations and
enforcement of arrest warrants for torture and kidnappings
(renditions) after the US pressured them (source Wikileaks cables).
So I would assume that Google or any organization would probably comply as well.
To ensure free speech can not be prevented by taking down web sites,
we need to create a totally distributed website hosting technology
based on BitTorrent or something similar.
Happy coding. ;-)
Daniel Guermeur
Co-author of App Engine Java and GWT Development: http://bit.ly/hdTHyB
Blog: http://supercobrablogger.blogspot.com/
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
> To post to this group, send email to google-a...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengi...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.
>
>
Philip
right of free speech. But I'd also assume that Google would not stand
up against the us government for offending the first amendment. :-(
However, I will still donate to Wikileaks and I would suggest anyone
else to do the same: http://wikileaks.org/support.html
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be
limited without being lost."
Thomas Jefferson
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be
led, like sheep to the slaughter."
George Washington
On Dec 4, 1:34 am, supercobra <superco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Amazon and Google have been long-time partisans of freedom of speech.
>
> However in this case, the pressure coming from the government must be
> incredible. Amazon is not the only victim of these intimidations. US
> government employees have been forbidden to visit Wikileaks sites and
> to discuss these matters on Facebook. At least one US university has
> been 'persuaded' to ask their students not to reference any Wikileaks
> documents in their research papers... (how is that for doing thorough
> research!).
>
> Even crounties bend under US pressure. We have seen it to be the case
> with Spain & Germany which dropped their lawsuits, investigations and
> enforcement of arrest warrants for torture and kidnappings
> (renditions) after the US pressured them (source Wikileaks cables).
>
> So I would assume that Google or any organization would probably comply as well.
>
> To ensure free speech can not be prevented by taking down web sites,
> we need to create a totally distributed website hosting technology
> based on BitTorrent or something similar.
>
> Happy coding. ;-)
>
> Daniel Guermeur
>
nickmilon
Still I am not sure that G would surrender so easily as Amazon did,
there is a precedence: G vs Lieberman story:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/05/dialogue-with-sen-lieberman-on.html
when G stood to its values.
By the way ...
http://wikileaks.org/support.html doesn't work for me
http://213.251.145.96/support.html is working (for the time been)
Jeff Schwartz
Jeff Schwartz
Ikai Lan (Google)
always thinking of our users first. We recently published something
called the "Transparency Report" which shows which governments ask us
to take things down:
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests
--
Ikai Lan
Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
Blogger: http://googleappengine.blogspot.com
Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/appengine
Twitter: http://twitter.com/app_engine
nickmilon
government request is coming soon:
"The Tunisian government, known for its restriction on freedom of
expression, rapidly blocked the access to Tunileaks. They first
blocked http://tunileaks.appspot.com/ ( without the https). One day
later, they blocked Google App Engine’s IP address (209.85.229.141) in
order to block Tunileaks under https, making appspot.com partially
unavailable in the country .
( http://elitestv.com/pub/2010/12/tunisia-censorship-continues-as-wikileaks-cables-make-the-rounds
)
On Dec 6, 10:10 pm, "Ikai Lan (Google)" <ikai.l+gro...@google.com>
wrote:
> always thinking of our users first. We recently published something
> called the "Transparency Report" which shows which governments ask us
> to take things down:
>
> http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/governmentrequests
>
> --
> Ikai Lan
> Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine
> Blogger: http://googleappengine.blogspot.com
> Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/appengine
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/app_engine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Jeff Schwartz <jefftschwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Freedom of speech is always a worthwhile subject and its defense is the
> > ethical and moral obligation of every freedom loving individual but perhaps
> > this is best discussed in a dedicated blog on the subject.
>
>
> >> Philip +1
> >> Still I am not sure that G would surrender so easily as Amazon did,
> >> there is a precedence: G vs Lieberman story:
>
Barry Hunter
time - but they are by no means the only country.
Surely in this thread you asking if Google would do anything themselves?
nickmilon
Yes that was the original question.
On Dec 8, 2:04 am, Barry Hunter <barrybhun...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Blocking is nothing new. China of course has been doing it for a long
> time - but they are by no means the only country.
>
> Surely in this thread you asking if Google would do anything themselves?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It seems the question is not hypothetical any more and a new
> > government request is coming soon:
>
> > "The Tunisian government, known for its restriction on freedom of
> > expression, rapidly blocked the access to Tunileaks. They first
> > order to block Tunileaks under https, making appspot.com partially
> > unavailable in the country .
ajaxer
Will
Will
Jeff Schnitzer
up a reverse proxy on any of the zillions of other cloud providers. A
256MB rackspace cloud instance costs $11/mo, runs apache/mod_proxy
just fine, and is 12ms to ghs.google.com.
That IP address gets banned? Set up a new instance. Keep getting
banned? Automate the process.
Jeff
Will
Thanks,
Will
timwhunt
Will the user's IP address get passed through so your app / Google's
service sees it (and not the proxy server)?
Will it work for SSL/https connections too? Will browsers bark that
names don't match certificates or some other problem?
Is that a good alternative to using a custom domain via Google
domains?
Thanks for the tip! I'm not worried about this now, but it's a good
trick to know!
Jeff Schnitzer
> Jeff, can you point me to a more detailed explanation of reverse proxy and
> its setup?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=reverse+proxy
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 8:25 AM, timwhunt <timw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regarding the reverse proxy idea:
>
> Will the user's IP address get passed through so your app / Google's
> service sees it (and not the proxy server)?
Google's service will see the proxy's address. However you can pass
the originating IP as an additional header and process it as you like.
> Will it work for SSL/https connections too? Will browsers bark that
> names don't match certificates or some other problem?
You can use SSL for this but it's a bit more complicated. The SSL
connection will be established between the client and the proxy using
your certificate, then a different connection is established between
the proxy and GAE. Depending on your threat model you may wish to use
SSL for the backend connection, which will use the google cert to
appspot.com.
It's worth noting that this is essentially what the SSL feature does
at Google Apps for Business, except that Google runs the proxy, and
the leg between the proxy and GAE is on Google's secure network.
Without SNI, SSL requires a dedicated IP address.
> Is that a good alternative to using a custom domain via Google
> domains?
It isn't an either/or issue. If you need to work around the fact that
AppEngine uses a pool of shared IP addresses (SSL is an example;
geocode ratelimits are another), use proxies - either outbound
(traditional proxy) or inbound (reverse proxy). Pick a facility that
is logically close to GAE (ping from rackspace cloud is 12ms) and
users will never notice the difference.
Jeff
