SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Charles Cooper reports that venture capitalist Marc Andreessen has called former NSA contractor Edward Snowden a traitor for leaking national secrets about US surveillance practices and says that foreign nations may use the disclosures as an excuse to promote their domestic technology suppliers over American rivals. "Obviously he's a traitor," says Andreessen. "Like if you look up in the encyclopedia 'traitor,' there's a picture of Ed Snowden. Like he's a textbook traitor. They don't get much more traitor than that. I will say that I'm in the distinct minority out here. Most people in Silicon Valley would pick the other designation."
Andreessen added that NSA leaks may well wind up getting used as a cudgel by foreign governments against American companies that depend on overseas sales. "There's a big open question right now how successful our companies will be when they go sell products overseas," says Andreessen. "I think there are a lot of foreign companies that are very envious of Silicon Valley and America's domination of tech and wish that they could implement protection policies. And they are going to use this whole affair as a reason to do that ... as an excuse."
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @10:55AM
begging for a bellyfull of 'bama cum
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @10:58AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @11:05AM
What's a Netscape? Sounds 20th century to me. Of course a 20th century relic will vote Republicrat.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by lx on Saturday June 07 2014, @11:41AM
He's also the darling of the Bitcoin community.
This could lead to quite the shitstorm.
BRB. Getting some popcorn.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Zyx Abacab on Saturday June 07 2014, @07:07PM
Good lord, really? Everyone knows Berkeley FFS [wikipedia.org] is way better.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by davester666 on Saturday June 07 2014, @07:15PM
He's got something he wants to sell to the gov't....
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 08 2014, @01:16AM
My thought to. Karma points to the one that figure out exactly what..
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @01:43AM
Us.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @07:57PM
How is supporting Obama any better than supporting Romney? By your logic, most american people have "gone off the deep end".
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 07 2014, @11:11PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @01:31PM
>By your logic, most american people have "gone off the deep end".
Correct. Sort your country out.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by elgrantrolo on Saturday June 07 2014, @11:04AM
It is a fair comment, if all you care about is money.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @11:08AM
Ordinary Americans can't even afford money.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Squidious on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:15PM
Yup, he already has his megabucks. Once you reach that point of course you are going to side completely with any agency tasked to keep the serfs in order.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 2) by Rune of Doom on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:31PM
Exactly. From the POV of an oligarch, Snowden is undoubtedly a traitor - he increased the probability that they'll all end up swinging from traffic lights.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @05:50PM
For those who don't recognize all the memes at work in Andreessen's screed, first there's Authoritarianism, [wikipedia.org] a form of societal organization by an elite class [wikipedia.org] where the only views that count are those of the rich. [wikipedia.org]
...and even when supermajorities of the populous want something|don't want something their desires are ignored. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [popularresistance.org]
The opposite of that dystopia would be a system where the will of the majority (largely composed of working people) [wikipedia.org] is the way society is governed, AKA True Democracy, following Switzerland's 700-year-old example. [wikipedia.org]
Step 1 in achieving that is a constitutional amendment to get money out of elections:
Money is not speech; corporations are not people.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan#headline [wolf-pac.com]
https://movetoamend.org/#main [movetoamend.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2, Troll) by Grishnakh on Saturday June 07 2014, @06:34PM
Most Americans side with those agencies. Most Americans are happy to put the interests of the plutocrats over their own self-interest, because they really believe that rich people are better than them.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday June 08 2014, @12:58AM
Or believe they will once be rich and thus must make sure they will be influential.. when they get rich. In the old days the poor were told they would have a better afterlife than the rich ones. Or one can simple believe that rich and powerful people act in their interests, of course because the media they own told you so.. ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @03:33AM
"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves, not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." --John Steinbeck
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LookIntoTheFuture on Saturday June 07 2014, @11:04AM
The problem isn't the leaks. It is the actions of the NSA. Stop blaming the messenger!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @12:21PM
Exactly. Lets flip this around. Had it been China that was caught doing something it shouldn't be doing and trying to hide it would we get upset them because they were unable to keep their actions a secret demanding that they try harder next time or would we get upset at them for doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place?
If someone gets caught stealing something or cheating on a test do we get upset at them because they got caught and shouldn't have, demanding they try harder to get away with it next time, or do we get upset at them for doing something they shouldn't be doing and punish them to deter them from doing it again?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by lx on Saturday June 07 2014, @11:11AM
It's disappointing that he puts profit before morality.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Saturday June 07 2014, @02:09PM
> It's disappointing that he puts profit before morality.
If you were around when Netscape spun out of Mosaic, you'd know he's always had a questionable set of morals.
(Score: 1) by quixote on Saturday June 07 2014, @02:29PM
I was around. But I wasn't paying attention. I had no idea.
His whole justification seems to be "ZOMG My companies may sell less stuff."
Pathetic.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Saturday June 07 2014, @02:44PM
I honestly don't remember the specifics, it was so long ago. I just remember getting a very unfavorable impression of the guy during that process - it didn't help that his engineering contribution was very minor. I was completely unsurprised that he went on to become a vulture capitalist.
(Score: 1) by meisterister on Saturday June 07 2014, @06:56PM
>His whole justification seems to be "ZOMG My companies may sell less defective bug-ridden spyware crap."
FTFY.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Saturday June 07 2014, @11:50AM
I wonder if his pubic support for the illegal and unconstitutional actions of the NSA means that Netscape, and any other technology product Andreessen is involved with (or that his venture capital dollars taint), was friendly & cooperative with the NSA? Could it be that anything he's pushing/supporting now is rife with NSA bugs and his investments actively assist TLAs? I'm sure Rockmelt has a feed directly to our friends with short hair and blind spots regarding the Constitution.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ryuugami on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:10PM
I wonder if his pubic support
I fully endorse this Freudian typo.
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by Rune of Doom on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:33PM
A year ago I would have said this line of thinking was overly paranoid. Now, it just seems like a common-sense precaution.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by ButchDeLoria on Saturday June 07 2014, @12:00PM
Every company that was complicit with the NSA would be beaten out of existence. I can see trying to forgive ones that were compromised from within, but any company that got on the PRISM boat willingly deserves to be boycotted out of existence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @08:56PM
There might have been companies forced into the 'PRISM boat' via a National Security Letter.
Will these companies get a second chance when/if they can say they were 'blackmailed' like this?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by geb on Saturday June 07 2014, @12:12PM
This is brought up frequently in comment threads about Snowden. Somebody accuses him of being a traitor, then somebody else points out that treason is defined in the US constitution, and his actions don't match. Even us filthy foreigners have picked up the message by now, so a US citizen ought to know this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by skullz on Saturday June 07 2014, @02:53PM
Unfortunately, you filthy foreigners probably know more about the Great American System than Americans. Americans don't vote in large numbers (unless it is a presidential election, and even then it's pretty pathetic), we shirk jury duty (the cornerstone of our legal system), and we get our news from dubious sources if we read the news at all. I don't think your average American knows anything about our Constitution beyond "The Second Amendment == YALL CANT TAKE MA GUNS" which isn't exactly true.
(Score: 1) by MickLinux on Sunday June 08 2014, @01:44AM
Couldn't it be that shirking jury duty is doing the best he can with what he's got?I have dreaded the very real prospect of jury duty, not because of the time or cost, but because I have no confidence that the information that is given to me will be full and accurate, representative of the truth. Nor do I have confidence in the rule of law, that the law is applied equally, for its own purposes rather than to increase other illegal behavior.
In common terms, I mean this: I am sure that if Manning had been before me, I would have been sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, and I had to convict. But the reality was that he was innocent, the war criminal murderers and the pentagon honchos were guilty even of treason, and he was a scapegoat and example.
As a result, I am convinced that if on a jury, I would have to ignore all presented evidence and acquit, becaure of the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Our government of men, not law, has made even no doubt fail that test. And that is a terrifying thought for a prospective juror.
But it says to me that it may not be the citizens' fault for nonparticipation.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday June 08 2014, @02:34AM
That's an interesting insight, and you may be right.
I have noticed, tho, that a lack of participation and a more-liberal political mindset tend to go hand in hand. I just went over the participation rates by county in my state, and there's a very good correlation.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08 2014, @03:51AM
I have no confidence that the information that is given to me will be full and accurate
DESPITE WHAT A JUDGE MIGHT SAY IN HIS INSTRUCTIONS, the jury is *not* there to rubber stamp a legislature's actions nor to rubber stamp the opinion of the prosecutor nor to rubber stamp the opinion of the judge.
If you get the impression that the state has played dirty, it is your duty to rule against the state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday June 09 2014, @11:30PM
No truth in that. Mid-term election turnout is only just slightly smaller:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/midterm-election-turnout-isnt-so-different-from-presidential-year-turnout/ [fivethirtyeight.com]
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by skullz on Tuesday June 10 2014, @02:17AM
This is a discussion about the American electoral system. Kindly take your facts and shove them.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:05PM
are "We The People" who you could say that Snowden filed his reports to on the actions of his "superiors". Those in service to the US often swear an oath, first to preserve and protect the Constitution in which "We The People" created the US Government and then to follow the orders of those above them. What the government is doing now is like a lieutenant putting spyware on the colonel's daughters computer to keep her webcam on and broadcasting to him while she changes clothes etc, monitoring and recording all of her browsing, communications etc on it. Sergeant Snowden finds out and is ordered not to tell the colonel but he tells them anyway, which puts him in violation of his orders.
So is Colonel "We The People" tired of getting treated like Colonel Klink? And aren't "We The People" glad Snowden wasn't another Sergeant Shultz? Imagine what sort of use the lieutenant had for those images and information he was gathering on "We the People"s daughter?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:18PM
Constitution? Only filthy foreigners and terrorists - I know, the same thing - actually READ the damn thing. Real patriots believe what they're told about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:59PM
We don't take kindly to book learnin' 'round here. We go with our guts.
-Typical Merkin
(Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Saturday June 07 2014, @09:23PM
I think Stephen Colbert said it best:
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Saturday June 07 2014, @07:19PM
> treason is defined in the US constitution
I had to go look this up. Here's the text:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Saturday June 07 2014, @08:14PM
WE are all misreading Andreessen here! He says Snowden is a "textbook traitor". Now I for one did not know that you had to be loyal to textbooks, or they to us, and certainly I did not now you could betray a textbook or give aid and comfort to its enemies. What are the enemies of a textbook, anyway? The Common Core? Texas Board of Education?
I just wish Mark had been more specific, and told us what specific textbook Edward is a traitor to!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by computersareevil on Saturday June 07 2014, @12:58PM
If Snowden is a "textbook traitor", he is only a traitor to the textbook fascists [merriam-webster.com] like Andreessen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:28PM
Andreessen [merriam-webster.com]
(Score: 1) by digitalaudiorock on Saturday June 07 2014, @08:04PM
What's getting so silly about all these accusations is the fact that a huge, growing portion of the population is viewing him more as a hero for essentially throwing his life away in an attempt to expose a huge wrong. Most everyone I know falls into that camp.
And seriously...lets remember that all this shit has been (supposedly) about the so-called "war on terror". At it's best that whole thing amounts to a complete and utter disregard of anything resembling risk assessment, and at it's worst it's...well...exactly what the Snowden revelations have proven it is. It's as if the feds want us to accept that it's OK that they've lied to us for decades, broken the law, burned the constitution and everything it stands for...but "oh...don't ask questions...we have to do this to make sure you don't get struck by lighting three times in the same fucking spot". I don't buy any of it.
I guarantee that Osama knew this is exactly where we'd go as a result of 9/11, and we can all thanks the feds and our own irrational, mindless, fear for making him succeed.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @01:34PM
He is absolutely correct. The pro-Snowden crowd conveniently ignores the whole foreign intel part of it because it doesn't fit their little narrative of how Snowden is the champion of the people by revealing domestic surveillance. If you think the ends you care about justify his means, then fine and admit that, but you can't ignore that he sold out his country regarding foreign intelligence. But own up to the fact that he did a massive dump of unrelated information and this isn't some release of info to show the domestic stuff. It is simply amazing the extent of hero worship that goes on and how one can lock on to one part and completely ignore or justify all the bad stuff. Steals massive amounts of documents on foreign intel programs then runs to China and Russia, and most of you guys want to build a monument to him. Un-fucking-believable.
The funny part is that most of the people I"m referring to here look down on Fox News and MSNBC opinion programs as being so blatantly slanted, but you do the same damn thing: lock on and obsess on the one part of topic that aligns with your world-view, and use it as a crowbar to bend and/or ignore all the other damning parts of a topic (and not to mention, get all foamed-at-the-mouth worked up if someone points out the bad parts to you).
And don't forget kids, "I disagree" or "I can't argue against your point" is not the same as "Flamebait" or "Troll".
(Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Saturday June 07 2014, @01:40PM
>And don't forget kids, "I disagree" or "I can't argue against your point" is not the same as "Flamebait" or "Troll".
>don't forget kids
>kids
You are your worst enemy, greeny.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 3, Informative) by lx on Saturday June 07 2014, @01:56PM
I'm not a US citizen, so your "foreign intel" is aimed at me.
With allies like this, who needs enemies?
(Score: 1) by Immerman on Saturday June 07 2014, @05:30PM
Come now - without good enemies how is your government supposed to convince you to surrender your rights in a similar fashion?
(Score: 5, Informative) by AsteroidMining on Saturday June 07 2014, @02:11PM
Fail.
As pointed out above, treason is defined in the US Constitution (the only crime so defined). Article III Section 3 :
Has Snowden levied war against the US? Clearly not. Has he adhered to our enemies? Also, clearly not, as neither Russia nor China is an enemy of the United States, as no state of war exists between these states. (Whether you could be guilty of treason if you joined Al Quaeda is an interesting question, given that we are in an undeclared war with them, but it is not relevant here.)
So, he may be guilty of various crimes, but treason is not one of them.
(Score: 2) by Rune of Doom on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:36PM
The American Public (and any other inhabitants of Earth who aren't supporters of the globalism oligarchy) clearly are the Enemies of the United States Government.
(Score: 1) by basicbasicbasic on Saturday June 07 2014, @06:32PM
There's that odd wording "giving them aid and comfort". That, to me, looks like a way to make sure that just giving aid to your enemies not enough to qualify as treason. Because you can certainly say Snowden gave aid to the enemies of the US, but that's a very different thing to treason.
Can anyone with some legal/historical knowledge shed light on why it's written that way?
(Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Saturday June 07 2014, @07:17PM
It's basically a copy of the English High Treason law (1351), which besides things like screwing the Queen therefore calling into question the succession or killing the King has
The 2 witnesses thing also comes from English law and was introduced due to abuse by the monarchy using treason as a catch all for things they didn't like.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday June 07 2014, @07:01PM
Sorry, but he is a traitor, by definition. He provided aid to the enemies of the United States Government, in the form of intelligence about surveillance. Those enemies are the People of the United States, whom he aided with this information. Therefore, he's a traitor.
Sounds weird, yes, but that's how it is when you live in an oligarchy.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SlimmPickens on Saturday June 07 2014, @10:02PM
He is legally, morally and ethically required to expose illegal acts by his own government, especially after the result he got from repeatedly raising his concerns through the official channels. That prevents him from being a traitor, especially with the lengths he took to minimise "aiding the enemy". Blame for the damage lies 100% with the intelligence community and the executive branch.
You can not have the USA actively compromising information infrastructure and in the process exposing everyone to governments and criminals alike to facilitate their own offensive cyber warfare. Can you not see how fucked that is? I dearly hope you're just a trolly-wolly.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 09 2014, @03:03PM
especially with the lengths he took to minimise "aiding the enemy"
No he didn't. He provided this information to the American People. The American people are the enemy of the government.
He is legally, morally and ethically required to expose illegal acts by his own government,
The government doesn't care about morality or ethics, and "legal" is whatever the people in power say it is.
I dearly hope you're just a trolly-wolly.
I'm just representing the government's viewpoint here.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday June 07 2014, @11:17PM
He provided a service to 'we the people'. Not a traitor.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday June 09 2014, @03:01PM
He provided a service to 'we the people'. Not a traitor.
Yes, a traitor: "we the people" are the enemy, of the United States Government. A "traitor" is someone who provides aid and comfort to that nation's government. Since the people are the enemy of the government, he's by definition a traitor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @02:13PM
Yeah, stuff like that is going to hurt foreign relations. Good.
At this point it looks like having the whole world tell us to fuck off is the only thing that's going to get through to these assholes. What the u.s. citizens want is irrelevant, when it hurts some company's bottom line is when things actually change.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mytundra on Saturday June 07 2014, @02:50PM
>And don't forget kids
If you had wanted a thoughtful response you would have acted more maturely.
We all know why he had to flee the US (see Chelsea Manning and Thomas Drake) and how the U.S. Department of State revoked his passport, forcing him to stay where he is. We all know how you are, predictably, desperate to attack his character (as if we're here to discuss his personal glory) and avoid the really difficult questions about the government itself.
The game is already over. You might want to go back to your patriotic echo chamber. But since you view more and more of the general public as enemies and traitor worshippers, that chamber will have to get thicker as well.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday June 07 2014, @03:14PM
Domestic surveillance and unrelated information. Would what you call "unrelated information" be the global surveillance? The same tools?
You ought to be aware that when the NSA subverted Chinese Huawei in China and created ways of using Huawei hardware to spy of people then that very Huawei equipment doesn't know whether it is spying on you (obviously an Usian, certainly not an American by the sound of it) or me (a foreigner). It makes no difference.
Or if you prefer US hardware: Cisco. Still makes no difference (but hurts twice as much: have you no pride at all?).
Was that a sufficient example of unrelated information? Do you wish to provide your own example?
When the NSA collected and stored the content of every single telephone call in Bahamas and in Afghanistan the data was "exfilled" using CONVEYANCE for voice processing and using NUCLEON to store the voices because what else could the NSA mean by using those words when giving an introduction on related systems to themselves in the slides [firstlook.org] (scroll down until you see the "APEX VoIP Exploitation" slide, the VoIP part only relates to a specific collection tool and not the backend systems). This is done in exactly the same way by exactly the same tools no matter where the data comes from.
If I called you then the contents of the call and both your and my voice would be sent exactly the same route into the surveillance system and exactly the same tools would be used. And the next time I call it could potentially not be me even though you recognize my voice. Or are you dissing the abilities of the NSA?
Have a look at the slide named APEX VoIP Exploitation again and notice that named cloudy thing in the middle? The one named "NSA Net"? This is where the NSA says everything goes to before being sent to the tools for "Exfilled content".
You go there just as easily as I do. Or are you saying the NSA is lying to itself?
Wasn't that a good example either?
As a foreigner according to you I shouldn't really care one bit about the NSA domestic surveillance of Americans and Usians. However the NSA doesn't really care about any differences (oh they'll claim to do so for sure but that's meaningless) nor do they reserve their methods only for foreigners or anything like that. They'll say anything but they'll also do anything.
So if I think those tools are a bad idea in the first place why should I make a difference for you? Why should I say that domestic surveillance of Usians is a good and proper thing? Why should I be like you? Why would you want to be like you?
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @04:14PM
The NSA played a dangerous game where there would be serious economic consequences if other countries knew and realized what they were actually doing. Then, well, Snowden made that happen.
It takes a certain character to put the blame on the latter here. A character that could do well in a mafia-like organization, that is.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by legont on Saturday June 07 2014, @09:01PM
China and Russia are obviously the most disappointed parties in the whole deal. Given the ease Snowden got all this, the real spies definitely had it all and now the info is compromised and so useless. It's hard to imagine a bigger gift to the US intelligence community than Snowden's leak.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07 2014, @06:24PM
Snowden provided useful info for foreign intelligence agencies, and terrorists. There has not been a public debate about the SPECIFIC types of intelligence gathering. Senators, like Dianne Feinstein, have not been strongly effected by this. Snowden forgot how much the American public cared about terrorism, and how little it cared about the rest of the world. Politicians try to keep an eye public sentiment. Given Facebook, I am not surprised about the lack of interest among the American Public.
Chelsey Manning was just not rigorous enough in her leaking, and screening. We could have gotten some good debates about Iraq policy if he had fled, and was choosy about the specific information he released.
(Score: 2) by Popeidol on Sunday June 08 2014, @03:39PM
Hi guys, non-America here.
Snowden had an effect on IT purchasing, but not what you'd expect. Most companies are still happy to buy US software, they just want it to be private. This means that we've had a huge expansion of local cloud services. Some of it is locally built, some is open source, but a huge chunk is US companies who provide local hosting options.
You know who's doing great? Microsoft. While they're pushing the cloud hard to compete, they have locally hosted copies of almost everything. We're legally required to have things hosted where we physically control it. We run a windows domain exchange email, and dynamics crm. I snuck in half a dozen linux vms running various services, but everything business critical run locally and comes from Microsoft. I don't see that changing unless Microsoft makes some serious mistakes.