Why “Moving to the Cloud” Feels Like a Solution
For many firms, cloud migration represents progress.
Cloud platforms promise:
Better security controls
Centralized access
Strong identity integration
Reduced infrastructure burden
Modern collaboration
After years of managing on-premise systems, this feels like maturity.
And technically, it is.
But governance does not improve simply because infrastructure modernizes.
The Mistaken Assumption
Many firms unconsciously adopt this belief:
“If the platform is modern, access must be better controlled.”
This assumption conflates capability with intent.
Cloud and SaaS platforms answer questions like:
Can the user authenticate?
Is the device trusted?
Is MFA enabled?
Is access logged?
They do not answer:
Should this user see this matter?
Why does access exist?
When should it end?
Who approved it?
Has it been reviewed?
Those are governance questions.
Platforms Enforce Mechanics — Not Meaning
Cloud platforms are designed to be:
Flexible
Fast
Scalable
Easy to collaborate with
They excel at mechanics:
Identity verification
Resource availability
Permission inheritance
Sharing at scale
They do not understand:
Legal matters
Client sensitivity
Ethical walls
Case closure
Professional responsibility
As a result, access decisions are still made by:
Group membership
Folder inheritance
Convenience
Historical artifacts
The platform does exactly what it was built to do.
The problem is that no system tells it when access should stop.
How Cloud Platforms Accelerate Exposure
In legacy environments, access mistakes were constrained by friction:
Network boundaries
Physical offices
VPNs
Managed devices
Cloud platforms intentionally remove that friction.
As a result:
Access works from anywhere
Sharing is instant
External collaboration is easy
Identity becomes the primary gate
This is powerful.
It is also unforgiving.
A single mis-scoped permission can expose:
Entire SharePoint libraries
Multiple matters
Years of historical data
Sensitive client information
There is no gradual failure.
There is no warning phase.
There is only scope.
The Visibility Problem
Cloud platforms provide logs.
They do not provide meaning.
You can see:
That a user accessed a file
That access was authenticated
That the system allowed it
You often cannot see:
Whether access was appropriate
Whether it aligned to a matter
Whether it should have ended
Whether anyone reviewed it
When questions arise, firms are left reconstructing intent after the fact.
That is not governance.
That is archaeology.
Why SaaS Makes Blurred Boundaries Worse
SaaS tools are optimized for:
Speed
Collaboration
User autonomy
They encourage:
Broad sharing
Persistent access
Self-service permissions
Long-lived external users
Without governance:
Temporary access becomes permanent
External collaborators linger indefinitely
Role changes accumulate permissions
Matter closure has no enforcement mechanism
Nothing breaks.
Everything works.
Until it doesn’t.
Why This Rarely Gets Noticed Internally
Most firms do not discover this problem because:
No alarms trigger
No errors appear
No one complains
Work continues uninterrupted
Clients assume confidentiality.
Partners assume controls exist.
Staff assume access is appropriate.
The system provides no signal that boundaries have blurred.
Exposure exists silently—until scrutiny arrives.
When the Platform Cannot Defend the Firm
When challenged by:
A client
An auditor
An insurer
A regulator
A transaction review
The firm is not asked:
“Did the platform work?”
It is asked:
“Why did this access exist?”
Cloud platforms can prove authentication.
They cannot prove justification.
That distinction defines liability.
Governance Must Sit Above the Platform
Cloud and SaaS platforms are not the enemy.
They are governance-neutral.
They amplify whatever discipline exists above them.
Without governance:
Access expands
Permissions persist
Boundaries blur faster
With governance:
Access aligns to matters
Permissions expire automatically
Reviews are enforced
Proof exists continuously
The platform executes.
Governance decides.
The Takeaway
Modern platforms did not create governance problems.
They revealed them—and accelerated their consequences.
Cloud and SaaS systems answer how access happens.
They do not answer whether it should.
Firms that move to modern platforms without governance do not become safer.
They become faster at making ungoverned decisions.
Where This Leads Next
In the next article, we examine how identity-based access, without governance, magnifies this risk even further—turning authentication into a master key instead of a control.
For now, the conclusion is simple:
Platforms do not enforce intent.
Governance does.
About the Author
James Phipps is CEO of BeCloud, Mississippi’s only AWS Advanced Tier Services Partner, specializing in governance frameworks for compliance-intensive organizations. BeCloud works with legal services organizations, healthcare providers, and professional services firms to design infrastructure where security and compliance are embedded by design rather than retrofitted after deployment.