Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Blasts Google For False Claims In Court Documents

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the a-case-of-he-filed-she-filed dept.

Microsoft 213

recoiledsnake writes "Microsoft writes in a blog post that Google knowingly lied to the court while suing the US government over its consideration of only Microsoft implementations. We previously discussed Google winning an injunction against the Department of the Interior over this. According to Microsoft Deputy General Counsel David Howard, 'Google filed a motion for a preliminary injunction telling the court three times in a single document that Google Apps for Government is certified under FISMA. Google has repeated this statement in many other places as well. Indeed, for several months and as recently as this morning, Google's website states, "Google Apps for Government – now with FISMA certification." ... So imagine my surprise on Friday afternoon when, after some delay, some of the court papers were unsealed, at least in part. There for all to see was a statement by the Department of Justice contradicting Google on one of its basic FISMA claims.' Howard goes on to quote the DoJ brief (PDF), which says, '... it appears that Google's Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shock - Big Business Lies (2)

Tigger's Pet (130655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785230)

I think the title says it all. What's the old phrase? "If you can't blind them with science, then baffle them with bullshit."

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (1)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785268)

Are you talking about Microsoft or Google?

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (4, Insightful)

StuartHankins (1020819) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785304)

Yes.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785552)

What is it with that dumb as fuck 'Yes' meme shit?

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785640)

'Yes' is now a meme? Damn. I'll have to start using 'Not No' from now on.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785678)

It's not a meme, it's been around a long time, it's an answer to both.
To clarify if you don't get it: "Are you talking about Microsoft of Google?" Yes, both Microsoft AND Google were being referenced.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (2)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785716)

It's not a meme [wikipedia.org] . It's a correct answer to a question which was written ambiguously, allowing multiple interpretations.

It's an annoying and eccentric behavior, perhaps, but it has been done for centuries, or longer.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785948)

It's a Mathematician's Answer [tvtropes.org] .

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786120)

What is it with that dumb as fuck "What" meme shit? And don't get me started about those ridiculous "dumb" "fuck" "meme" and "shit" memes, those are fucking retarded. It's like everything everyone says is some stupid meme.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785310)

Are you talking about Microsoft or Google?

Yes.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (4, Interesting)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785312)

According to the court papers, Microsoft is not lying here. Google Apps for Government really doesn't have FISMA certification, even though Google said it did.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785714)

According to the court papers, filed in opposition to Google, Microsoft is not lying here.

FTFY.

In fact the court papers themselves mention that Google Apps does have FISMA certification. Google Apps for Government is a restricted subset of Google Apps - which, technically, appears not to have been seperately certified as of the given date.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (3, Interesting)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785832)

According to the court papers, filed in opposition to Google, Microsoft is not lying here.

FTFY.

Hello, anonymous Google supporter who shows up in every article. The information is in a statement from the Department of Justice in the court briefing [technet.com] . It's not an allegation or statement of opinion; Google really doesn't have the FISMA certification they claimed they did. Microsoft further made the point in the linked article that if the FISMA certification for Google Apps Premier applied to Google Apps for Government, Google wouldn't be applying for another certification specifically for Google Apps for Government.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786004)

You mean even though Google continue to claim, even though its clear that they don't. Why does Google feel the need to pad its credentials out like this though? Its like Bill Gates putting "awarded bronze swimming certificate" on his CV, right next to "Founded Microsoft".

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785328)

Yes.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (3, Interesting)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785300)

Same as what they were doing against Apple. They accused Apple of using the wrong font size in their court documents (hence claiming they were invalid) rather than actually fighting the case. They really are at the pinnacle of the BSing

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785568)

Except Google lying to a court would be perjury. And that is pretty darn illegal.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (4, Insightful)

Locutus (9039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786142)

you must be too young to have watched the Microsoft vs DOJ case where Microsoft showed a video of how easy it was to download netscape and install it(or something like that) and repeatedly was asked if this was an unedited unscripted video and repeatedly they said yes Your Honor. So out comes the prosecution with scenes showing icons mysteriously moving and even disappearing on the desktops in the video and to that the Microsoft lawyers confessed it was mocked up. So what is lying to the Judge and perjury really mean in todays courts? zip, zero, nada, nothing.

BTW, I still have seen no dates for when Google got that cert and when they said they "had" it.

LoB

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785674)

because (believe it or not) it's faster to resolve a case based on a technically that actually have to argue out law

i know amazing isn't it?
a lawyer possibly trying to finish things up quickly
to fulfil the required level of microsoft bashing i'll add this:
probably as laywer wants to spend as little time with microsoft as possible. he might be evil, but not that evil.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (2)

meerling (1487879) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785686)

"They really are at the pinnacle of the BSing" - Of course, they are both using lawyers.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785742)

So, for those of you who didn't RTFA, here's what actually happened:

Google Apps Premier HAS a certification.

The even more secure Google Apps for Government has applied for the same certification but hasn't gotten it yet.

It is unclear whether or not there is even a need for the additional certification given the massive similarities between the two platforms. Microsoft is claiming that there must be because Google applied for a new certification for Google Apps For Government. Given that the two platforms vary by not much more code than would be involved in a typical Patch Tuesday, it is highly unlikely that this is material to the conversation.

Just to go back to the original problem: A government entity approved a massively more expensive Microsoft solution over an equivalent Google solution that would have saved the taxpayers significant amounts of cash. Microsoft is now saying that this is all because of the difference in title between "Premier" and "For Government." Call me skeptical, but this smells rotten to me.

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786014)

Mod parent up!

Re:Shock - Big Business Lies (1)

jdgeorge (18767) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785632)

The old phrase is, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull....", attributed to W.C. Fields

Google's lawsuit is dumb (2)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785246)

I always thought Google's lawsuit was dumb. Government agencies are free to choose Microsoft software if their sysadmins wish to use Microsoft software. Google's response was to criticize that software and tout their own. However, the government is a customer too and is free to choose a product that happens to be in the unique position of having competitors who think their products are better.

Accusations of government favoritism from Google are particularly ironic considering the numerous ties they have to the Obama administration. That there wasn't actually a FISMA certification to begin for Google Apps for Government--the certification was for Google Apps Premier, so Google has quietly filed again for the correct software--just caps the silliness of the whole thing.

Here's the relevant text in the court documents:

On December 16, 2010, counsel for the Government learned that, notwithstanding Google’s representations to the public at large, its counsel, the GAO, and this Court, it appears that Googles Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification. [...] We immediately contacted counsel for Google, shared this information and advised counsel that we would bring this to the Courts attention. According to the GSA, Googles Google Apps Premier received FISMA certification on July 21, 2010. However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and, Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government. [...] To be clear, in the view of GSA, the agency that certified Google’s Google Apps Premier, Google does not have FISMA certification for Google Apps for Government.

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (5, Insightful)

doconnor (134648) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785330)

"However, the government is a customer too and is free to choose a product that happens to be in the unique position of having competitors who think their products are better."

The government isn't free to choose. Government have to follow strict regulations in purchasing to insure it gets the best value for money, doesn't show any favoritism and prevent corruption. One can debate the effectiveness of the regulations, but they are there for a reason.

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (4, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785406)

Yes, and Google's App Platform for Government wasn't FISMA certified and thus wasn't qualified to be bought. Then Google sues and lies about having that certification. I'm seeing no reason why Google's lawsuit should be entertained at all. Especially since if this were Microsoft doing exactly what Google is doing the S

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (1)

brennz (715237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785672)

GSA, the lead government agency for acquisition, certified and accredited Google according to FISMA.

The question is really whether or not GSA can do that (Certify and accredit for the entire US govt), and whether or not any agency can arbitrarily add their own unique security requirements(DOI excluding)

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785816)

No the bigger question is what exactly Google said in the filings. Google Apps Premier was certified, Google Apps for Government isn't yet.
If Google said they have an offering that is FISMA certified they are fine, if they said Google Apps for Government is FISMA then they will have a complicated court fight.

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785726)

Pedant/FYI: (feel free to ignore)
"The Government has to follow strict regulations in purchasing to ensure that it gets the best value for money, doesn't show any favoritism and to prevent corruption"

(You could have also said: "It has to follow..." or "They have to follow..." depending on your local pluralism habits.)

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (1)

doconnor (134648) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785946)

What I meant to write is "Governments have".

I don't think adding "to" is correct. The list follows on "ensure that it" and "ensure that it to prevent corruption" doesn't make sense. I guess I should have said "prevents corruption".

Then, again I'm terrible at grammar. I have a whole blog [homeip.net] full of errors like this.

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785744)

I hope this truly is anonymous.

You are correct in saying "Government have to follow strict regulations in purchasing to insure it gets the best value for money, doesn't show any favoritism and prevent corruption" but let me precede that by saying that I'm a government employee and that I work in a position that is part of the procurement process.

Here's how it works: You go to company A, who develops an awesome product and one you really wish to purchase. It's more expensive than you'd like, but it's been tested and it works. But, since you need to get the government the best deal it possibly can you also need to get competing quotes against said product. The easiest way to get around that liability is to simply "game" the system. You go to vendor B & C (which produce vastly inferior products, or products that are similar but flat out won't work for whatever reason) and ask for comparable quotes. You *know* vendor B's products are 10x the markup on vendor A's, so immediately they don't have a shot. Vendor B's prices are actually MUCH cheaper, but you know they make a killing on their vendor supported contracts, which are 3x as expensive as vendor A's contracts. So you include contract support in both quotes and suddenly vendor A is tens-of-thousands of dollars less.

It happens _all_ the time. Better yet, you can simply request a form letter that allows you to bypass any competitive bidding completely and just purchase from the vendor as single-source.

Does it happen because we're getting our palms greased with easy money and kickbacks? Not at all, we're not politicians. It happens because of the bureaucratic process we're all required to go through just to get the items we need. Would you buy a house built by the lowest bidder? Sure it'll meet the basic requirements (shelter, protection, stability) but it's built out of asbestos and the floor is made of tar & straw. Or, would you look around and find something that *works*, fits your needs and is competitive to the price you're willing to pay without feeling like you've just been ripped off? If we all took the government motto of "get the best value for the money" we'd all be living in mobile homes. It may be the cheapest thing out there, but I wouldn't recommend it.

That's government purchasing in a nutshell.

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785412)

However, the government is a customer too and is free to choose a product that happens to be in the unique position of having competitors who think their products are better.

Sort of.

The government is a customer, but it's not any customer. It has a legal obligation to pay the least amount of money for whatever solution they need, and therefor there are only three possible reasons a department should choose Company A over Company B: 1) Company B's product does not meet the requirements; 2) Company B's product would cost more than Company A's; 3) Company B has previously operated in bad faith or incompetently with the government, meaning that even though theirs was the cheapest and technically meets the requirements, there is good and documented reason to go with another provider.

In that sense, "criticiz[ing] that software and tout[ing] their own" is actually a necessary step of the process. Either Google's offering was more expensive and they want to argue that Microsoft's does not properly meet the requirements, or (probably more likely) Google's was cheaper and they're trying to show that they do. If Microsoft's doesn't, that's fine too -- it's another path to the same victory.

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785628)

also. Best value and lowest price are two different things.

Re:Google's lawsuit is dumb (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785538)

Government agencies are required to place most purchases out for bid (and this is one that must be placed out for bid). What would you think of a government agency that put its need for vehicles out to bid in the following manner, "We are requesting competitive bids to replace our fleet of vehicles. All vendors are encouraged to submit bids. We are looking for 10,000 vehicles. Here are the specifications: GMC Yukon."
Except of course that it is worse than that. They put out a list of specifications that included things that MS Office does not have (FISMA certification). Now while according to this article Google Apps for Government does not yet have FISMA certification, Google Apps Premier (upon which Google Apps for Government is based) does. On the other hand, according to earlier postings here, no version of MS Office has FISMA certification. If this latter is not true, then Google's lawsuit is dumb. If on the other hand, it is true, then Google has a valid point.
On the other hand, Google appears much more savvy at greasing the wheels of government than Microsoft was at a similar stage of corporate development, which is cause for concern.

A link to google statement on this (-1, Troll)

larrywal (2038992) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785254)

here [goo.gl]

Re:A link to google statement on this (3, Informative)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785270)

goatse warning.

Re:A link to google statement on this (0)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785572)

goatse warning.

Nope, that's a picture of Larry Page making a statement about this.

Goatse link (2, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785278)

Don't click.

Re:A link to google statement on this (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785320)

Link is goatse

Re:A link to google statement on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785380)

do not click link. goatse alert

Re:A link to google statement on this (1)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786070)

Oh My Gawd! It's full of SHIT!

probably a silly question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785284)

'... it appears that Google's Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification.'"

aren't they sure?

Re:probably a silly question (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785510)

Legalese. The court makes findings of fact. The lawyers make claims about what they believe the facts to be, and supply evidence to support their claims.

To a lawyer, "it appears that Google lacks FISMA certification." In a court's findings, they will uphold or deny this claim, based on the evidence presented. If they find that Google does not have that certification, and that claim of certification is a key component of Google's case, their entire case could well be thrown out.

Re:probably a silly question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785554)

TFA points out that only DoJ has reviewed this and concluded that this is not the case. So, Microsoft has not verified this themselves nor have the court.

A link to google's statement on this (-1, Troll)

haxor22 (2038994) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785308)

here [goo.gl]

Re:A link to google's statement on this (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785338)

Link is goat se

DONT CLICK (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785342)

DONT CLICK LINK.

Re:A link to google's statement on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785346)

NSFW

Double-standards (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785332)

Google does this, it's "Nothing to see here, you shouldn't be surprised, move on, move on"

Microsoft does this, "omg .. did you see what they did! remember this day, and USE IT IN COMMENTS FOR THE NEXT SEVEN YEARS"

Re:Double-standards (0)

HBI (604924) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785442)

Past history, track record, yadda yadda. Microsoft has done little (read: nothing) to regain credibility after their past transgressions. They've crushed software innovation for the last 25 years in the interest of their bottom line, using both legal and illegal methods.

They don't get the benefit of the doubt for a reason.

Re:Double-standards (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785542)

Oh really? Let us see who MSR employs and enables to do unencumbered research?

SPJ - haskell, Tony Hoare - Quicksort, Shotton - Kinect (this made it to actual consumers btw), Niraj Kayal (the K in AKS). MSR was itself responsible for ClearType (Windows XP), Surface and a slew of others tools you take for granted. for a more comprehensive list: http://www.quora.com/Microsoft-Research/What-products-have-come-out-of-Microsoft-Research

If you close your eyes, it doesn't mean the room is empty.

Re:Double-standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785668)

We know that MSR is the good part of MS.

Re:Double-standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785754)

What msr has done is completely orthogonal to redemption from microsoft's crimes. In light of that, their continued patent trolling, buying ISO, etc. I agree with the GP.

Re:Double-standards (0)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785470)

From what I can see, it's a bit shaky, although it seems to be technically true. I read the TFA (sorry). From what I can see, this is the crux of it:

According to the GSA, Googles Google Apps Premier received FISMA certification on July 21, 2010. However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product and, Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government.

Basically, Google Apps *is* FISMA certified, but a more restrictive version called "Google Apps for Government" is not yet through certification. I didn't read the entire attached document, but this looks like the real meat of it.

Re:Double-standards (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785778)

Well, it's a bit more specific. Google sued the government because they did not look at Google Apps for Government. The government claimed that they didn't because Google Apps for Government lacked FISMA certification. In their lawsuit Google claimed that they did. In that context, whether or not Google Apps for Government was certified or Google Apps Premier was certified it becomes an issue of credibility for their entire lawsuit.

Re:Double-standards (2)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785536)

Not quite. I don't like MS and do prefer Google as a company BUT if they out right lied then they should be punished accordingly. If they keep on doing it then its time to support someone else who can do business with out lying or borderline breaking laws.

Re:Double-standards (1)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785584)

Sure, Ill take some double standards, looks good next to my giant bias.
I dont remember swearing to treat evil crap companies the same as decent ones.

Re:Double-standards (5, Interesting)

brennz (715237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785622)

The truth of the matter is more simple.

Google went through the agonizing process of FISMA that is very stringent compared to jokes like a SAS 70 type 2. Microsoft did nothing. DOI does not have a FISMA certified private or govt cloud.

DOI determined they would add in their own unique security requirements for a yet-unbuilt cloud solution that had never been certified for FISMA. Basically a joke of a to-be solution.

Google cried foul, claiming they had already passed the FISMA qualification, something no other cloud vendor had done at the same time period. Google claimed a certified solution like their cloud could not be compared against a non-existent pipedream cloud.

Re:Double-standards (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785982)

Google went through the agonizing process of FISMA that is very stringent compared to jokes like a SAS 70 type 2. Microsoft did nothing. DOI does not have a FISMA certified private or govt cloud.

Irrellevant. Microsoft's product had already been proven to be able to be FISMA certified per the court documents from DOI. It also indicates that any solution cannot be FISMA certified until it is built. Whatever solution is eventually bought must past FISMA certification afterwards.

Google cried foul, claiming they had already passed the FISMA qualification, something no other cloud vendor had done at the same time period. Google claimed a certified solution like their cloud could not be compared against a non-existent pipedream cloud.

Actually, no they didn't. Google passed FISMA for Google Apps Premier not Google Apps for Government. Also, the DOI requirements were in the RFQ at the beginning. The FISMA certification was not relevant to whether Google Apps for Government was chosen or not. It was the fact that Google indicated Google Apps would co-mingle Federal, State and Local governments in that cloud. THAT was the deal breaker, not the FISMA cert or lack thereof. DOI required that only Federal be allowed and this was indicated in the RFQ. FISMA certification is per agency also. The GSA's certification is meaningless beyond the fact that it indicates a particular product *can* be certified.

Google in the right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785856)

Poster is a troll, the DOJ say they have certification for 'Google Apps premium' which is THE SAME PRODUCT, all of these Google apps for this and that are all just marketing names for the same product with different prices.

So the original article is misleading, and poster doesn't even mention that actually they DO HAVE Certification for Google Apps Premium, he wants you to believe they don't have it certified.

So DOJ tries to riggle out of the contract by claiming its a different product, Google says, no its the same, and we'll submit for certification to show its the same, and original story claims that the act of applying is proof that it's not certified.... which is rubbish.

What I want to know is why the games here? Why not just consider Google apps, why try so hard to choose Microsoft? What's in it for them to choose a more expensive option here and then try these tricks to justify that choice?

Re:Double-standards (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786026)

Another .NET idiot trying to defend the transgressions of Microsoft.

A link to google's statement on this (-1, Troll)

YodasEvilBrother (2039004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785364)

here [goo.gl]

Re:A link to google's statement on this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785386)

You're a fucking douchbag.

Re:A link to google's statement on this (1)

rveldpau (1765928) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785428)

That is the most accurate comment yet

Re:A link to google's statement on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785494)

Totally not goatse!

JK, of course it's goatse. Don't click.

Re:A link to google's statement on this (1)

CTU (1844100) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785638)

I am sick and tired of that crap on /.

can we start banning people who post that hiding it behind a url shortening link like goo.gl?

While this may become news, is it news yet? (1)

Saishuuheiki (1657565) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785416)

While I don't doubt that this story is worth mentioning if Google didn't have the certification and claimed it did, is it worth mentioning yet?

While this may be what happened, even the author is vague about it. This seems like a Glenn Beck style story of "I'm not absolutely sure, but I heard "

A link to google's statement on this (-1, Troll)

haxor24 (2039008) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785426)

here [goo.gl]

Re:A link to google's statement on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785464)

here [goo.gl]

you fucker

Re:A link to google's statement on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785532)

I had the same thought as you. What a fucking asshole. The link is nsfw.

Re:A link to google's statement on this (1)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785576)

here [goo.gl]

you fucker

you sucker. :)

nice goatse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785474)

nice i thought it probably was just as i clicked.

Re:A link to google's statement on this (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785476)

I don't think Google actually responded with a goatse.

Re:A link to google's statement on this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785496)

goatsex alert!

Fine print & commentary (2)

brennz (715237) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785486)

GSA certified and accredited Google Apps (FISMA certification)
GSA is the lead agency for acquisition for the US Govt
GSA met several the NIST standards at the moderate level
DOI claims that the GSA certification doesn't meet their specific standards and they have to have a govt only cloud in the continental US.
DOI security has been the laughingstock of the US govt for as long as I can remember*

DOI disconnected from the internet by a federal judge for complete failure in IT security [google.com]

Re:Fine print & commentary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785850)

You might want to read the court docs from the DOI...

"On December 16, 2010, counsel for the Government learned that, notwithstanding Googles representations to the public at large, its counsel, the GAO, and this Court, it appears that Googles Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification. See Attachments 1-5 to this motion. We immediately contacted counsel for Google, shared this information and advised counsel that we would bring this to the Courts attention. According to the GSA, Googles Google Apps Premier received FISMA certification on July 21, 2010. However, Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product
and, Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its Google Apps for Government. See Attachment 3. To be clear, in the view of GSA, the agency that certified Googles Google Apps Premier, Google does not have FISMA certification for Google Apps for Government. Attachment 3."

So in short, Google Apps Premier is FISMA certified but was not the product being offered to DOI. Google Apps for Government is NOT FISMA certified but Google claimed it was. The GSA certification is meaningless if the product you are selling is different from the one certified and in any case only shows that the product provides the bare minimums. Each department is allowed to require additional security if they so desire and this was indicated in the RFQ. Considering this department's problems with security you don't think they should ask for more than the bare minimum?

Typical /. reaction (0)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785498)

A story about Google doing something wrong gets spammed with goatse links...who'da thunk it?

Grasping at straws (1)

tpotus (1856224) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785500)

Reading the summary makes gave me the imrpession that microsoft really has decleared open season on Google internally. As MS can't compete by product quality, they do what they do best: Spin, FUD and judicial assault.

Re:Grasping at straws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785690)

Reading the summary makes gave me the imrpession that microsoft really has decleared open season on Google internally. As MS can't compete by product quality, they do what they do best: Spin, FUD and judicial assault.

Uhm.. you accedentially switched the companies there. The story is about Google having been caught lying in their lawsuit against US Government because they lost a deal with their product offering.

Ah.. ninjaedit: My sarcasm meter might be off.

Re:Grasping at straws (2)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785784)

Except Google was not caught lying. We have Microsoft claiming that Google lied, nothing more.

Re:Grasping at straws (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785882)

Except Google was not caught lying. We have Microsoft claiming that Google lied, nothing more.

This is untrue. Quoted and linked even in the summary: "There for all to see was a statement by the Department of Justice contradicting Google on one of its basic FISMA claims"

Re:Grasping at straws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785846)

Agreed. Anybody and everybody that has a stake in the future of computing being a level playig field where unencumbered innovation can happen needs to declare war on Microsoft and hit them (legally) in every way they can. Don't keep wiping viruses off of your family's computers. Don't opt for MS at work as the "safe" solution. Don't install pirated copies of their stuff on people's computers. Microsoft deserves to be plowed under with extreme prejudice.

Re:Grasping at straws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785926)

As MS can't compete by product quality, they do what they do best: Spin, FUD and judicial assault.

Yeah, because everyone wants to use command line applications and text editors that belong to the 1980s.
Oh, my bad! You're talking about Google, carry on.

Wellll.....maybe (1)

magbottle (929624) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785502)

Federal News Radio [federalnewsradio.com]

They (Google) seem to think that Google Apps for Government _is_ Google Apps Premier with some additional security aspects that do not disqualify the application suite's FISMA certification.

Overblown, see pdf (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785528)

Taken from the pdf

According to the GSA,
Googles Google Apps Premier received FISMA certification on July 21, 2010. However,
Google intends to offer Google Apps for Government as a more restrictive version of its product
and, Google is currently in the process of finishing its application for FISMA certification for its
Google Apps for Government.

So the original was certified, but the repackaged version for the government was not.

Re:Overblown, see pdf (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785634)

Maybe from a technical aspect. But from a compliance and legal aspect, it puts Googles entire case in doubt.

Not entirely accurate (2)

insidious777 (890334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785564)

If you read the brief, it's actually not quite as simple as Google "does not have FISMA certification." FISMA certification is per-agency, and Google *has* FISMA certification for GSA. Google *does not* have FISMA certification for any other agency. Each agency makes its own determination. It also appears that FISMA is a minimum for information security, so agencies can require more than FISMA if they want to. (Refer to brief pages 37-39 for the details on FISMA.)

Re:Not entirely accurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785840)

It also appears that FISMA is a minimum for information security

As far as I can tell it's uncontested that the Microsoft products involved do not have FISMA certification so if FISMA certification is a minimum then the contract should not have been awarded to them.

Re:Not entirely accurate (1)

insidious777 (890334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785930)

Right.

Google doesn't have the FISMA certification *for DOI*, which is the only FISMA certification that really matters in this case.

Google *could* argue that they should have been given the certification, since they have FISMA for GSA, but I think that would be a stretch.

Re:Not entirely accurate (1)

insidious777 (890334) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785940)

Err, I definitely read "Google" in the parent post instead of "Microsoft". Stupid dyslexia.

Re:Not entirely accurate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35786138)

The FISMA certification was not a requirement. The product just had to be able to be certified. DOI determined that the Microsoft product could achieve FISMA certification and according to the court docs it has done so. 1st paragraph page 28.

"DOI never mentioned pre-FISMA certification as one of its requirements. See AR170-171. Rather, its requirements merely note DOIs obligation to meet FISMA and other security requirements. The agencys Limited Source Justification explains that DOI merely wanted to establish the vendors “[a]bility to comply with security requirements defined by FISMA.” AR847 (emphasis added). Indeed, as is discussed below, a dedicated cloud would never be FISMA-certified prior to its procurement and implementation.6 [redacted] simply determined that Microsoft was capable of meeting FISMA standards – a finding that has been borne out by subsequent events."

proof? (4, Insightful)

dwater (72834) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785598)

Being wrong is not the same as lieing. Furthermore, I would imagine it is very difficult to prove someone deliberately lied.

blog: "Microsoft on the issues" (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785698)

Now there's an unbiased source of news.

This may be true, Google might have lied (on purpose or by accident), but can't we at least come up with a source that isn't so obviously biased?

Re:blog: "Microsoft on the issues" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35785854)

...but can't we at least come up with a source that isn't so obviously biased?

How about, maybe, the DoJ?

Actually, if you RTFA, the author does lay it out rather clearly why he thinks Google is lying (although he does so a bit more diplomatically than this headline suggests).

Only very religious people (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785798)

take Microsoft serious, pay

.. and believe

Oh come on, sure they do (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785866)

It's just in Beta still.

Slightly OT (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785916)

So pulling back a bit and looking at the big picture: has there been a significant increase in the number of petty corporate lawsuits or is it just my observational bias, IE reading too much Slashdot?

Pot and Kettle (5, Informative)

madmark1 (1946846) | more than 3 years ago | (#35785934)

Microsoft Chief Council says Google Lied in Court...

Pot, meet kettle...

As usual, the headline is a bit misleading, and certainly leaves out a large part of the story. Google Apps Permier has been FISMA certified by the GSA, so when you go to the Google website and look, and it says "Now FISMA certified", they aren't lying. They really are FISMA certified. However, FISMA is not a blanket certification. The DoI does not have to accept the FISMA certification of the GSA, it can decide to do its own testing if it wishes. This doesn't change the fact that Google Apps Permier has in fact attained FISMA certification.

The second tricky bit is Google Apps for Government, a product that didn't exist at the time the court case started. The law says (and the brief points out) that FISMA certification cannot be attained until after implementation of the product, and thorough testing. So, in that case, Neither Microsoft's offering, nor Google Apps for Government, is FISMA certified, nor could they have been at the time. Now, Google Apps Premiere was certified, and Apps for Government was going to be done under a more restrictive set of security constraints, so it would have likely passed too. What I have to wonder though, is did Google lie, and say Google Apps for Government had the FISMA cert, or did they say "Google Apps is FISMA certified", which is true?

I have to come down on the side of the Microsoft lawyer playing this up for far more than it should be.

Re:Pot and Kettle (2)

sangreal66 (740295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35786132)

What I have to wonder though, is did Google lie, and say Google Apps for Government had the FISMA cert, or did they say "Google Apps is FISMA certified", which is true?

Why wonder? It is demonstrated in the attachments. Example [google.com] :

Google Apps for Government, now with FISMA certification

The representative from the GSA who granted the certification also clearly states in emails that Google Apps for Government is not certified by their department (as you mentioned, it could not be).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?