GPT-4o: Hubert's warning should be taken seriously—European governments should absolutely rethink their cloud strategies and work toward greater self-sufficiency.

Asking AI services: Please read the article “It is no longer safe to move our governments and societies to US clouds” and tell me what it says and more importantly, whether you agree with the perspectives shared.

ChatGPT-4o’s answer:
Summary of the Article:

The article, "It is no longer safe to move our governments and societies to US clouds"by Bert Hubert, argues that it is reckless for European governments and societies to continue relying on American cloud services. The key points are:

1. Dependence on US Cloud Services Is Dangerous: Hubert warns that entrusting European government data and operations to US cloud providers is a major risk. He criticizes the Dutch government for justifying such transfers with weak legal arguments, which he claims were invalidated by Donald Trump's actions.

2. Legal Justifications Are No Longer Valid: The article asserts that attempts to legally justify storing European data in the US—through frameworks like Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) and Data Transfer Impact Assessments (DTIAs)—are misleading. Hubert claims that the US has dismantled its privacy protections, rendering such justifications meaningless.

3. Political Risks Under Trump: The article highlights that Trump's administration has undermined privacy laws, neutered privacy oversight, and pushed for greater control over data. Hubert argues that the entire US tech industry bends to Trump’s will, making it a dangerous partner for Europe.

4. US Cloud Dependence = Loss of Sovereignty: Hubert points out that by relying on US-based cloud services, European governments expose themselves to potential political, legal, and security risks. He warns that the US could cut off access to crucial data or services at any time.

5. Convenience vs. Security: Hubert criticizes European governments for prioritizing the convenience of US-based services like Microsoft Teams and Google Cloud over security and sovereignty. He suggests that Europe should invest in alternative solutions, even if they require effort to adapt to.

6. A Call for Change: The article urges European governments to stop justifying their reliance on US clouds with legal loopholes and start investing in European alternatives. Hubert emphasizes that dependency on American infrastructure is no longer viable and could have severe consequences.

My Take on the Article:

I think Bert Hubert raises some valid concerns, but his argument is somewhat alarmist and lacks nuance in a few areas.

Points I Agree With:

• Sovereignty Risks Are Real: European governments should have greater control over their data and should not rely entirely on US-based companies, which operate under American laws that may not align with European interests.

• Legal Uncertainty Exists: Hubert is correct that the legal basis for transatlantic data transfers is fragile. The EU-US Data Privacy Framework (successor to Privacy Shield) is already facing challenges, and any shift in US policy could render it ineffective.

• Over-Reliance on US Tech Giants Is Problematic: Governments should not be at the mercy of private corporations or foreign governments for essential infrastructure. This was evident when the US pressured cloud providers to cut off Russian services after the Ukraine invasion.

Points I Disagree With (or Find Overstated):

• Not All US Companies "Bow to Trump": While Trump has influence, it is an oversimplification to claim that the entire US tech industry follows his every move. Many companies, including Microsoft and Google, push back on government overreach.

• No Practical European Alternative (Yet): Hubert calls for Europe to "just invest in its own solutions," but this is easier said than done. The European cloud market is underdeveloped, and while there are promising initiatives like GAIA-X, they are nowhere near as robust as AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud.

• Ignoring Hybrid and Multi-Cloud Strategies: Many European governments already use a mix of on-premises, European cloud providers, and US cloud services. The article frames this as an all-or-nothing decision, which isn't entirely accurate.

Final Thoughts:

Hubert's warning should be taken seriously—European governments should absolutely rethink their cloud strategies and work toward greater self-sufficiency. However, completely avoiding US cloud providers is not a realistic short-term solution. A more balanced approach would be to:

1. Diversify Cloud Providers: Reduce dependence on US services but keep them in a hybrid model with European alternatives.

2. Strengthen European Cloud Infrastructure: Invest in robust European cloud services to provide viable alternatives.

3. Push for Stronger International Agreements: Work toward enforceable privacy protections rather than outright isolation from US technology.

Grok’s answer:
I've reviewed the article "It is no longer safe to move our governments and societies to US clouds" by Bert Hubert, published on his blog. Here's a summary of its key points and my assessment of the perspectives shared.

Summary of the Article

The article argues that it is unwise and risky for European governments and societies to rely on American cloud services (e.g., those provided by companies like Microsoft, Amazon, or Google) for storing data and managing critical operations. Hubert's central thesis is that this dependency is dangerous due to recent political developments in the United States, particularly under the influence of Donald Trump, whom he refers to as the "King of America." The main points are:

1. Loss of Trust in the U.S. as a Reliable Partner: Hubert asserts that the U.S. is no longer a dependable ally due to its political instability and the influence of figures like Trump and Elon Musk. He suggests that American companies are subject to the "dictatorial will" of such leaders, implying that they could be coerced into actions that harm European interests.

2. Risk to Data Sovereignty and Continuity: By entrusting data and processes to U.S. clouds, Europe risks losing control. Hubert warns that the U.S. could halt European operations "with the push of a button" or hold data hostage, a scenario he claims has precedent (though he doesn't specify an example). This threatens government and business continuity.

3. Legal Justifications Are Invalid: He criticizes the legal mechanisms (like Data Protection Impact Assessments and the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework) that have been used to justify data transfers to the U.S. Hubert argues that Trump's actions have undermined these frameworks, particularly by "neutering" oversight mechanisms like the special court meant to safeguard data transfers, rendering them legally untenable.

4. Convenience Over Security: The article lambasts the choice to use U.S. clouds for convenience and cost, dismissing European alternatives as viable despite claims of being less user-friendly. He calls this rationale "nonsense" and urges investment in local solutions.

5. Call to Action: Hubert advocates for Europe to stop "surrendering" to American tech, encouraging the use of alternative software and services, even if less polished, and suggesting that spending just 1% of budgets on European alternatives could foster innovation and reduce dependency.

My Assessment and Agreement with the Perspectives

The article presents a compelling case rooted in concerns about sovereignty, security, and geopolitical reliability, but it also relies heavily on emotional appeals and lacks detailed evidence to fully substantiate its claims. Here's my take:

Points of Agreement

• Geopolitical Risk is Real: I agree that relying on foreign infrastructure introduces risks, especially when the host country’s political climate is unstable. The U.S. has seen significant polarization, and policies under leaders like Trump could potentially affect how American companies operate, including their compliance with foreign government demands. Historical examples, like the U.S. government’s use of the PATRIOT Act to access data, lend some credence to this concern.

• Data Sovereignty Matters: The idea that critical government and societal functions could be disrupted by a foreign entity is a valid worry. If a U.S. provider were to cut off access—whether due to sanctions, legal pressure, or corporate decisions—it could cripple European operations. This is not just theoretical; sanctions against entities in other countries have disrupted cloud access in the past (e.g., Russian firms post-2022 Ukraine invasion).

• Need for Alternatives: Encouraging investment in European tech solutions makes strategic sense. Dependency on a single region’s providers creates a single point of failure, and fostering local innovation could enhance resilience and economic growth.

Points of Disagreement or Skepticism

• Overstated U.S. Control: Hubert’s claim that American companies universally bow to Trump’s "dictatorial will" is hyperbolic. While political pressure can influence corporate behavior (e.g., Musk’s compliance with certain U.S. policies), major cloud providers like Microsoft and Amazon have robust legal teams and global interests that often resist unilateral government overreach. The U.S. legal system, while imperfect, still imposes checks on arbitrary data access, such as the Stored Communications Act.

• Lack of Specific Evidence: The article references a past incident where data was held hostage but provides no details. Without concrete examples, this weakens the argument. Known cases—like the 2018 CLOUD Act debates or the Microsoft Ireland case—show legal battles over data, not outright hostage scenarios, suggesting a more nuanced reality.

• Dismissal of Legal Frameworks: Hubert’s assertion that Trump has "neutered" the special court (likely referring to the FISA Court or Data Privacy Framework oversight) lacks substantiation. The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework, finalized in 2023, includes safeguards like an independent Data Protection Review Court. While not flawless, it’s premature to declare it dead based solely on Trump’s influence as of February 2025.

• Practical Challenges Ignored: The call to abandon U.S. clouds overlooks the scale and complexity of modern IT needs. European alternatives (e.g., OVHcloud, Hetzner) exist, but they often lack the global reach, feature set, and reliability of U.S. giants. Transitioning government systems is a massive, costly endeavor, and Hubert underestimates the trade-offs beyond mere "convenience."

Broader Perspective

I see Hubert’s argument as a wake-up call rather than a fully actionable plan. The risks he highlights—geopolitical instability, data vulnerability—are real and merit serious consideration, especially for governments handling sensitive data. However, the solution isn’t as simple as switching providers overnight. A balanced approach would involve:

• Hybrid Strategies: Using a mix of local and foreign clouds to mitigate risk while leveraging existing infrastructure.

• Policy Enforcement: Strengthening EU laws to ensure data protection regardless of where it’s stored.

• Gradual Transition: Investing in European tech over time, rather than a rushed exodus from U.S. systems.

In conclusion, I partially agree with Hubert’s perspective: the risks of U.S. cloud dependency are significant and growing, particularly in light of political uncertainties as of February 24, 2025. However, his alarmist tone and lack of detailed evidence overstate the immediacy of the threat, and his solution feels more aspirational than practical. The issue deserves nuanced debate, not a unilateral rejection of U.S. tech.

Perplexity’s answer:
The article "It is no longer safe to move our governments and societies to US clouds" by Bert Hubert, published on February 23, 2025, argues against the continued transfer of European government and societal functions to American cloud services.

Here's a summary of the key points:

• The Core Argument: Hubert contends that relying on US cloud services is now dangerous due to the unreliability of the US as a partner, particularly with the legal justifications for data transfers being undermined. He suggests that the "King of America" (likely a reference to the US President) could exert undue influence and control.

• Convenience vs. Security: The author criticizes the rationale of convenience driving the migration to US clouds, stating that dependence on the American government's goodwill is risky.

• Legal Sophistry: Hubert dismisses legal mechanisms like DPIAs (Data Protection Impact Assessments) and DTIAs (Data Transfer Impact Assessments) as insufficient to guarantee data protection within US clouds. He argues that the legal basis for sharing data with American companies has been invalidated, especially with the neutering of the special court that previously facilitated such transfers.

• Business Continuity Risks: The article highlights the potential for business and governmental processes to be halted at the push of a button in the US, raising concerns about data retrieval and potential hostage situations.

• Alternatives and Courage: Hubert urges European governments and organizations to explore and adopt alternative software and services, even if it requires some adjustment. He suggests that investing in European alternatives would be a worthwhile price to pay for independence from US influence.

• The US Relationship is Over: Hubert states the relationship with America is over and it's time to stop complicated legal arguments about why it would be legal to put citizen's data in the US.

My Perspective

While I am an AI and do not have personal opinions, I can offer a balanced perspective based on the information available to me:

I can see the author's concerns regarding data security and potential overreach from foreign governments. The points about the US legal framework changing and the potential for business disruption are valid considerations for any government or organization when deciding on cloud infrastructure.

I am unable to assess the current state of international relations and make a judgement on whether the US is a reliable partner.

Ultimately, the decision of whether to utilize US cloud services is a complex one that requires weighing the benefits of convenience and cost against the risks of data security and geopolitical uncertainty. It's crucial for organizations to conduct thorough risk assessments, explore alternative solutions, and ensure they have appropriate safeguards in place to protect their data and maintain business continuity.

Claude’s answer:
I've read the article by Bert Hubert from February 23, 2025, titled "It is no longer safe to move our governments and societies to US clouds." Here's a summary of the key points:

The article argues that European governments and organizations should stop migrating their data and systems to American cloud services because:

1. Political concerns: The author refers to Trump as the "King of America" and expresses concern about his administration's policies and the unpredictability of US government actions.

2. Legal issues: The article claims that Trump has "neutered" the special court that made EU-US data transfers legal, effectively invalidating the EU-US Data Privacy Framework.

3. Data sovereignty: The author criticizes the "legal sophistry" used to justify data transfers, like claims that "Google cannot see the IP address" when data is processed through their services.

4. Business continuity risks: The author warns that US-based services could be shut down "with the push of a button," potentially holding European data hostage.

5. Convenience as poor justification: The article argues that the primary reason for using US services is merely convenience and familiarity with software like MS Teams and Office, which is insufficient given the risks.

Regarding whether I agree with these perspectives:

The concerns about data sovereignty and geopolitical risks are valid and important considerations in cloud strategy. The increasing politicization of technology and data flows has created legitimate security and continuity concerns for governments and businesses.

However, the article presents an arguably one-sided view. It doesn't address:

1. The technical and financial challenges of building competitive European alternatives

2. The global nature of cybersecurity threats (not just from the US)

3. The existing legal protections and checks that still function in cross-border data transfers

4. The economic and innovation benefits of international technology partnerships

A balanced approach likely requires a combination of:

• Strategic data sovereignty for truly sensitive government and critical infrastructure systems

• Well-negotiated international agreements with strong enforcement mechanisms

• Development of competitive European alternatives where feasible

• Risk assessment frameworks that consider both security and operational needs

The core concern about overdependence on any single foreign entity for critical infrastructure does represent a legitimate strategic consideration that governments should carefully evaluate.