×

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!

Groklaw: Microsoft Cloud Services Aren't FISMA Certified

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the thought-groklaw-had-declared-victory dept.

Cloud 152

doperative writes with this excerpt from Groklaw: "If you were as puzzled as I was by the blog fight, as Geekwire calls it, between Google and Microsoft over whether or not Google was FISMA certified, then you will be glad to know I gathered up some of the documents from the case, Google et al v. USA, and they cause the mists to clear. I'll show you what I found, but here's the funny part — it turns out it's Microsoft whose cloud services for government aren't FISMA certified. And yet, the Department of the Interior chose Microsoft for its email and messaging cloud solution, instead of Google's offering even though Google today explains that in [actuality] its offering actually is. It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

152 comments

filter (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35822774)

Is there anyway to filter google/microsoft wars on /. ?

Re:filter (3, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#35822816)

Yes. It's really simple. When those words enter your brain through your eyes, set your brain not to send a signal to your hand to click "Reply".

HTH.

Re:filter (1)

alphatel (1450715) | about 3 years ago | (#35823100)

I read this article to see if there would be interesting, surprising, or exciting information inside. Apparently not.

ask me if I care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35822788)

Google and Microsoft are in the same category nowadays....

Re:ask me if I care? (4, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 3 years ago | (#35823088)

Google and Microsoft are in the same category nowadays....

Not quite. Google is actually pretty competent in a lot of their service offerings, and they don't try to hold all your data hostage to proprietary technologies. That alone is quite a sharp contrast.

It was tactful of Google to call microsoft's FUD "irresponsible" without condemning the government workers who chose to go with microsoft in violation of their own policies. It's probably likely that points to another very large difference between Google and microsoft -- Google isn't into bribing IT decision makers, they rely on the strength of their offerings.

Re:ask me if I care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823378)

Exactly. Microsoft's online services are even worse when it comes to interoperability than their desktop software is, if you can believe it. Google's is exactly what you'd expect from a company which uses Linux, Windows, and OS X internally.

Re:ask me if I care? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823474)

Google and Microsoft are in the same category nowadays....

Not quite. Google is actually pretty competent in a lot of their service offerings, and they don't try to hold all your data hostage to proprietary technologies. That alone is quite a sharp contrast. It was tactful of Google to call microsoft's FUD "irresponsible" without condemning the government workers who chose to go with microsoft in violation of their own policies. It's probably likely that points to another very large difference between Google and microsoft -- Google isn't into bribing IT decision makers, they rely on the strength of their offerings.

This is rich, as a description of the company suing the IT decision makers because they chose their competitor.

Re:ask me if I care? (4, Insightful)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | about 3 years ago | (#35823576)

Hey, if the government chose my competetors in clear violation of the rules, I sure as heck would sue too. It's one thing if the government had a fair choice between them, and chose microsoft. But as we are seeing here, this isn't happening. They arbitrarially decided on microsoft in violation of the policies, all while allowing Google to think it had a chance early on.

Re:ask me if I care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823652)

If the 'government IT decision makers' are violating their own laws then it's up to the corporations to sue the government. In this case, the corporations are working on behalf of the people by enforcing their chosen laws.

Re:ask me if I care? (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 3 years ago | (#35823812)

This is rich, as a description of the company suing the IT decision makers because they chose their competitor.

Only a microsoftie or fanboi could feel that way. Anyone rational would, as others have pointed out, be pleased that Google is suing. I don't want my tax dollars squandered on inferior technology and lost productivity due to incompetent implementations. You wouldn't either, if you had any sense.

Re:ask me if I care? (2)

zooblethorpe (686757) | about 3 years ago | (#35823606)

Google isn't into bribing IT decision makers, they rely on the strength of their offerings.

These days, that practically *is* bribery right there -- oo, your software actually *does what it says on the tin*?? You mean I no longer have to guess which parts of your documentation are outright lies? Want!

'Course, the fact that I'm armpits-deep in trying to figure out MSO 2003 to 2007 formatting cruft issues might color my judgment somewhat. CSS makes a *lot* more sense than Microsoft's never-quite-baked styling. And don't get me started on the abomination that is Office "Open" XML, which I've recently had to become very familiar with in a file format conversion project here at work... >:-(

And then there's SDL's "wonderful" localization software, but that's niche enough I doubt anyone here would have much interest.

Cheers,

Re:ask me if I care? (2, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | about 3 years ago | (#35823942)

Google isn't into bribing IT decision makers, they rely on the strength of their offerings.

These days, that practically *is* bribery right there

:) Microsoft has attempted to solicit favors from the feds by essentially claiming that Google has an unfair advantage because their technology is better, so ms can't compete. They clearly have no shame at all. Can anyone honestly say with a straight face that Balmer doesn't come off as a total dog-and-pony show operator? Not even an entertaining D & P operator -- at least Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were entertaining and have had some interesting things to say. Balmer? Dores anyone remember anythiing Balmer says, besides "developers, developers...?" Please... And now we know that bing's search results == last week's google search results, could microsoft's online services be more of a laughingstock? I think these deals where any business makes a small fortune at the taxpayers' expense need to be 100% open and transparent. No back room hookers and blow, just plain, honest business accountable to the taxpayers.

Re:ask me if I care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824350)

No back room hookers and blow, just plain, honest business accountable to the taxpayers.

MS would be cut right out of many of their lucrative contracts, both government and business if they had to compete on merit alone. Anyone who's ever handled IT purchasing and isn't indoctrinated to think MS is the "default choice" knows this. MS will do what it takes to seal the deal with large IT decision makers. It's pathetic.

Voice from the Other Side? (2, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | about 3 years ago | (#35822802)

Maybe Groklaw should stick around?

Re:Voice from the Other Side? (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 3 years ago | (#35822868)

This is really strange that they're coming up with good stuff like this right before going away.

Re:Voice from the Other Side? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 3 years ago | (#35822936)

This is really strange that they're coming up with good stuff like this right before going away.

<George Castanza>Leaving on a high note!</George Castanza>

Re:Voice from the Other Side? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35822878)

Why? Does IBM need more astroturfing?

Re:Voice from the Other Side? (4, Informative)

517714 (762276) | about 3 years ago | (#35823974)

Not if this is the trend. Where are the links to the original sources - DOI RFQ, Google's complaint, the DOJ brief, and the amicus briefs? This was the worst bit of reporting I have seen from Groklaw, and I believe Google's suit is valid.

If you read the RFQ you can see that the DOI did not issue a competitive request as they should have, but that FISMA certification was to be achieved after the contract was issued so it is a non-issue.

Google's complaint is whiny and overlong and full of irrrelevant facts that only weaken their position.

The DOJ brief said the Government is presumed to act fairly so Google's suit should be dismissed. The DOJ has our best and brightest?

But instead of dealing with the real issues it is about distractions. What is this, Reality TV?

Re:Voice from the Other Side? (2)

Feltope (927486) | about 3 years ago | (#35824078)

But instead of dealing with the real issues it is about distractions. What is this, Reality TV?

Well since your talking about our government I am forced to ask one question. Is that a rhetorical question?

Getting worse by the minute (2)

Derekloffin (741455) | about 3 years ago | (#35822830)

When I first heard of this story, I thought it was just some government agency not dotting it's 'i's in the paper work. Now it's really starting to look like some serious BS was going on.

Re:Getting worse by the minute (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 3 years ago | (#35823750)

Now it's really starting to look like some serious BS was going on.

A lot of government procurement involves someone writing a list of requirements that can only be met by one company.
Sometimes it happens at the agency level, sometimes the requirements are attached to congressional appropriations.
Either way, it happens. A lot.

Re:Getting worse by the minute (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823794)

Starting?

Big F*cking Surprise (1, Insightful)

npsimons (32752) | about 3 years ago | (#35822832)

This is precisely why I tried modding the original FUD article down in the firehose. Anyone with half a clue and more than a few years experience in computing could have told you that Microsoft was most likely lying.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823006)

So can you articulate some lies?

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#35823056)

You forgot their "Get the Facts" Campaign already?

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823446)

So, that's no articulation then.

K.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (0)

Locke2005 (849178) | about 3 years ago | (#35823154)

How can you tell when a Microsoft spokesman is lying?


His lips are moving!

Perhaps, like Jon Kyl's remarks, this was "Not intended to be a factual statement!"

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (1, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about 3 years ago | (#35823170)

nah. more like his heart his beating. MS spokesmen are all too happy to lie on-line as well.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823736)

Who says they have hearts?

Standards games (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | about 3 years ago | (#35824646)

All vendors play these games, Nicrosoft just happens to be damned good at it.

Remember their EAL certification on NT? So long as there wasn't a network port or floppy drive installed on the machine, that part buried in the fine print of course.

Or adding the POSIX subsystem to NT to meet a bid spec. Because of course whoever wrote the spec never imagined somebody would write a whole POSIX implementation, get it certified POSIX and then just ignore it. Because I don't think anyone can point to a single damned application that was ever ported into NT's POSIX subsystem and actually deployed. The whole thing was such a scam they actually used the GNU tools to get it up and going as quick as they did, even had source available to comply with the GPL. Guess it wasn't a cancer when it was helping them scam the Department of the Navy.

Or Office supporting a standard file format.... not. They damned near destroyed the ISO bribing and manipulating the standards process to get a standard they don't actually make an effort to implement. Because as bad as OOXML is it is a standard and if they adhered to it interopeability might result and that would be the end of their monopoly.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824174)

Heh, same thing can be said about Google, make no mistake.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (1, Informative)

cbhacking (979169) | about 3 years ago | (#35823252)

Actually, I don't recall a single place where MS said their offering was FISMA certified. They weren't saying "Our offering is and Google's isn't, so choose us!" they were saying "Google is saying their oiffering is certified but it's not; they're lying to you." So far as I've seen, this is true. Microsoft never tried to hide that their offering wasn't certified yet, they're just a vendor calling out their competitor for lying to the client (the government).

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823360)

The reason MS falsely claimed that Google wasn't certified was to deflect attention away from their own lack. MS not having certification is just the motive for the lie.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823488)

Great! So can we kill the marketing departments now? Please?

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (2)

Inzite (472846) | about 3 years ago | (#35823960)

Great! So can we kill the marketing departments now? Please?

I have it on good authority that these mindless jerks will be the first ones up against the wall when the Revolution comes.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 3 years ago | (#35824466)

Not really, Goggle just got caught out by claiming something that was not entirely true and MS took advantage just like I have no doubt Google or any other competitor would have done the same if given the same opportunity.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823554)

The GSA themselves have declared that Google's product is indeed FISMA certified ( http://gcn.com/articles/2011/04/14/google-fires-back-on-fisma-certification.aspx [gcn.com] and http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-microsoft-you-owe-google-an-apology-2011-4 [businessinsider.com]) so Google's original argument that the Department of the Interior did not give Google fair consideration when selecting their vendor as Microsoft did not have FISMA certification is still valid. From what I understand, all this does is put more egg on Microsoft's face (along with the officials involved in vendor selection at the Department of the Interior).

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824124)

This is also pointed out in TFA.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (1)

greenbird (859670) | about 3 years ago | (#35823626)

So far as I've seen, this is true. Microsoft never tried to hide that their offering wasn't certified yet

Steve, is that you? Naaa, can't be. It's been a while since you've been reported as throwing chairs so even if you're on your meds no way the response would be that calm.

It's as far as you've seen because you've got Microsoft logos painted on your glasses. Read the article. The GSA stated that Google's offering was FISMA certified since July 2010. Since they're the ones who do the certifications I'd say that makes a pretty strong case as to who's lying here (it's Microsoft, in case you're still too dense to see it).

Microsoft never tried to hide that their offering wasn't certified yet

Even if they didn't their claim that Google's wasn't was a blatant lie. And a clear indication that they don't even understand how FISMA certification works which is telling in and of itself.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823898)

It's either a lie *or* they don't understand how it works, dumbass.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824122)

Or, how about, it is a lie, and Microsoft doesn't understand how the system works for them to get the same certification. The two are not mutually exclusive. Dumbass.

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | about 3 years ago | (#35824312)

Microsoft never tried to hide that their offering wasn't certified yet, they're just a vendor calling out their competitor for lying to the client (the government).

Except that it is and was [businessinsider.com] certified, according to the GSA (which issues the certifications).

Re:Big F*cking Surprise (1)

gaelfx (1111115) | about 3 years ago | (#35824352)

I had assumed the reason that they mentioned Microsoft's cloud services not being FISMA certified was that the government is still using Microsoft's services...or did I misunderstand something?

Google Says... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35822854)

Oh, thank god Google says it is certified. That really clears up the misunderstanding over it saying it is certified and potentially not being.

I don't really care which company it is, but if they say they are certified they better pony up and prove it. Particularly if it is for something security. If this were any other combination of companies I doubt that people would be as revved up about one calling the other out. Companies should be challenging each other and trying to beat one another. It's part of that game called business.

This was known... (0)

elashish14 (1302231) | about 3 years ago | (#35822872)

I believe part of Google's complaint was that additional cost in the government's Microsoft solution was going towards funding in the process of achieving FISMA certification (apologies, but no citation).

The point was... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35822894)

Microsoft never claimed they were....

Compared to? (-1, Flamebait)

HangingChad (677530) | about 3 years ago | (#35822906)

>It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'

Compared to their responsible FUD which is much better.

Re:Compared to? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#35823010)

>It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'

Compared to their responsible FUD which is much better.

Business as usual between business and government - business sells based upon MOU and promises they'll weasel around, while government rarely goes back to review the contract.

Crowd pleasing article (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35822948)

Groklaw is actually wrong on the basic fact of certification. Google Apps for Government is not FISMA certified and google itself has stated it hopes to get the certification "updated soon"

Secondly, one of the main reasons Google's bid was rejected by the DOI was over infrastructure concerns. Google does not have private infrastructure for Apps customers, one of the main disadvantages vs the MS product.

Lastly the MS complaint over FISMA certification was due to Google claiming it had it for Google Apps for Government when it still does not. MS never claimed to have it either.

Re:Crowd pleasing article (5, Informative)

freakingme (1244996) | about 3 years ago | (#35823018)

Groklaw is actually wrong on the basic fact of certification. Google Apps for Government is not FISMA certified and google itself has stated it hopes to get the certification "updated soon"

Groklaw is right on this. Google Apps has been FISMA certified, and as such Google Apps for governments is too since it's the same platform. What they want to have updated is the explicit mention of 'google apps for govs' which is currently not in the certs.

Re:Crowd pleasing article (0)

initdeep (1073290) | about 3 years ago | (#35824316)

having one product FISMA certified does not immediately make other products "utilizing the same platform" fall under the same certification.
The certification process explicitly states which exact products are certified when it is given.
This is why Google has asked that the certification be updated to include the Google Apps for Government.

Thus, the Google Apps for Government is not, currently, FISMA certified, although it appears to be in the process of obtaining such certification.

Re:Crowd pleasing article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824506)

Not "utilizing the same platform." It is the same platform. The only difference is where the data is located.

Re:Crowd pleasing article (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824574)

FTFA:

We [Google] take the federal government's security requirements seriously and have delivered on our promise to meet them. What's more, weve been open and transparent with the government, and it's irresponsible for Microsoft to suggest otherwise.

Let's look at the facts. We received FISMA authorization for Google Apps from the General Services Administration (GSA) in July 2010. Google Apps for Government is the same technology platform as Google Apps Premier Edition, not a separate system. It includes two added security enhancements exclusively for government customers: data location and segregation of government data. In consulting with GSA last year, it was determined that the name change and enhancements could be incorporated into our existing FISMA certification. In other words, Google Apps for Government would not require a separate application.

This was reflected in yesterday's Congressional testimony from the GSA: "...we're actually going through a re-certification based on those changes that Google has announced with the 'Apps for Government' product offering."

FISMA anticipates that systems will change over time and provides for regular reauthorization -- or re-certification -- of systems. We regularly inform GSA of changes to our system and update our security documentation accordingly. The system remains authorized while the changes are evaluated by the GSA. We submitted updates earlier this year that included, among other changes, a description of the Google Apps for Government enhancements.

Re:Crowd pleasing article (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824680)

I didn't even read TFA yet I guessed that, one post above yours. Man, the people here are dumb. Do they even know what Google Apps is at all? Even if GAfG wasn't the same platform, and the FISMA process rated things that did not change with GAfG, it would still undoubtedly qualify.

And she thought that groklaw was not worth doing (4, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | about 3 years ago | (#35823036)

The fact is, that SCO was NEVER about SCO or Unix. It was MS and Sun behind this. Now, MS has moved on to many many more targets. She is needed more now than ever. If I were in Google, I might consider ways to help her out financially.

Re:And she thought that groklaw was not worth doin (1)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | about 3 years ago | (#35824364)

That seems unwise. If they pay her then all we'll ever hear is how she's on their payroll, regardless of the quality of the work she does.

If the problem is money then if anything, we should pay her. Anyone feel like starting a "Save Groklaw" fund?

Follow the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823068)

Bribes anyone?

Yours In D.C.,
K. Trout

Uh, Where is the news here? (3, Insightful)

xkr (786629) | about 3 years ago | (#35823116)

I mean no offense, but as a student of history, aren't FUD and Microsoft synonymous?

Re:Uh, Where is the news here? (1, Insightful)

sco08y (615665) | about 3 years ago | (#35823340)

I mean no offense, but as a student of history, aren't FUD and Microsoft synonymous?

This FUD got Google dragged before the US Senate, so it's pretty newsworthy.

Re:Uh, Where is the news here? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 3 years ago | (#35823492)

I mean no offense, but as a student of history, aren't FUD and Microsoft synonymous?

This FUD got Google dragged before the US Senate, so it's pretty newsworthy.

Yeah, it's not like the House where just about anybody can get dragged before it.

Re:Uh, Where is the news here? (4, Informative)

turbidostato (878842) | about 3 years ago | (#35823748)

"I mean no offense, but as a student of history, aren't FUD and Microsoft synonymous?"

As a student of history you should know that FUD was an IBM invention, Microsoft is just an advanced student.

Re:Uh, Where is the news here? (1)

WillDraven (760005) | about 3 years ago | (#35824222)

If you want to be pedantic, the tactic has been in use for nearly all of human history, and the acronym was coined by Gene Amdahl (but yes, he was talking about IBM).

Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (4, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | about 3 years ago | (#35823134)

Am I not mistaken that Microsofts original claim was that Google claimed to be but were not, essentially calling out their lie? Did Microsoft also claim they were and this proves them to be lying as well?

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823192)

You're correct, but this is slashdot.

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (2, Interesting)

Derekloffin (741455) | about 3 years ago | (#35823214)

I would say the claim was implied since they were producing the product that was competing. If the certification was irrelevant, than bringing it up (particularly falsely as they did) is highly suspect.

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (2, Insightful)

cbhacking (979169) | about 3 years ago | (#35823290)

Microsoft never claimed that their offering was certified. Their claim was that Google was lying by claiming a certification that Google didn't have.

Apparently some people who have more hatred for MS than reading comprehension skill have twisted this into a claim that Google was pretending to have a certification that MS already has. That's not the case.

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35823540)

Microsoft never claimed that their offering was certified. Their claim was that Google was lying by claiming a certification that Google didn't have.

Apparently some people who have more hatred for MS than reading comprehension skill have twisted this into a claim that Google was pretending to have a certification that MS already has. That's not the case.

Even the "Google was lying" part wasn't from Microsoft, but from sensationalist media. If you read Microsoft's original posting on this it was actually quite cautios (but who cares, flame on)

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824700)

Even the "Google was lying" part wasn't from Microsoft, but from sensationalist media.

If you had read TFA then you might have seen this blog entry [technet.com] by David Howard who is Corporate Vice President & Deputy General Counsel for Microsoft [microsoft.com]. He says Google is lying about their FISMA certification:

Google can't be under the misimpression that FISMA certification for Google Apps Premier also covers Google Apps for Government. If that were the case, then why did Google, according to the attachments in the DOJ brief, decide to file a separate FISMA application for Google Apps for Government?

Nor does it seem likely that Google believes that the two offerings are so similar that the differences simply won't matter to people. After all, if the facts are so good, why persist in telling a fiction?

Why do you continue to lie in order to try to cover up the previous lies? Didn't your mother ever teach you the story about the boy who cried wolf?

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (0, Troll)

greenbird (859670) | about 3 years ago | (#35823742)

Apparently some people who have more hatred for MS than reading comprehension skill have twisted this into a claim that Google was pretending to have a certification that MS already has. That's not the case.

No, apparently people with the ability to actually read and comprehend have to explain how Microsoft lied and had their non-security certified solution chosen over one that had a security certification. You see, I'll type slowly, Microsoft claimed Google's product wasn't certified. But the GSA, who does the certifying mind you, said that Google's product is and was certified. So clearly Microsoft lied. And I think people want it explained why a government agency that was looking for a solution to reduce security breaches chose a solution that was not certified (Microsoft's) over one that was certified (Google's).

That's what the summary says. That wasn't so difficult now, was it?

If you're gonna try to be snarky at about reading comprehension it'd be better if you actually tried reading with a little comprehension first.

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (3, Insightful)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 3 years ago | (#35824644)

Apparently some people who have more hatred for MS than reading comprehension skill have twisted this into a claim that Google was pretending to have a certification that MS already has. That's not the case.

No, apparently people with the ability to actually read and comprehend have to explain how Microsoft lied and had their non-security certified solution chosen over one that had a security certification. You see, I'll type slowly, Microsoft claimed Google's product wasn't certified. But the GSA, who does the certifying mind you, said that Google's product is and was certified. So clearly Microsoft lied. And I think people want it explained why a government agency that was looking for a solution to reduce security breaches chose a solution that was not certified (Microsoft's) over one that was certified (Google's).

That's what the summary says. That wasn't so difficult now, was it?

If you're gonna try to be snarky at about reading comprehension it'd be better if you actually tried reading with a little comprehension first.

Your post exemplifies how Groklaw FUDs gullible people into believing nonsense. First of all the headline, summary and Groklaw are flat out twisting the facts about 'it turns out MS is the one without certification' as if MS claimed it, which it never ever did, at any point. Groklaw is the one lying by implying that MS said it's offering was FISMA certified. If you're quoting the summary, then you're the one that's being misled.

You're the one that needs to read, and not read just Groklaw even if you think it's a good source, because it's not and it's blindly anti MS biased and will twist and hide facts to support anything anti-MS and will cheerlead the other side and hide all their faults regardless of merits.

If you do so, you will see that Google wanted to throw federal data along with other private customers' data in the same servers and infrastructure. So if there was a breach because of the private customer, federal data would be compromised and told the DOI to shove it when it was objected. MS agreed to have a dedicated infrastructure for the DoI (the reason it was more expensive) so the DoI notified that it was restricting bids to resellers of MS's offering. AFTER all this, Google announced Apps for Govt with a separate cloud for Federal, State and County government data(which the DoI may not be still happy with because of State data getting intermingled).

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (0, Troll)

tgd (2822) | about 3 years ago | (#35823552)

No, but this is Slashdot and the reality distortion field is the rule where certain topics are concerned.

The poster sending it is not surprising, neither are the anti-microsoft drones replying, but it surprises me that the editors would let a story like this through. I mean, seriously, the last story in here talked about how part of MS's proposal involved the certification process, and the problem was Google was claiming they were cheaper and didn't need the certification.

Google was, and is, the one lying.

This is a surprising gaffe for Groklaw. I wonder if it was a legitimate mistake, or something done deliberately.

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (1)

inode_buddha (576844) | about 3 years ago | (#35824358)

There is no gaffe. I know from first-hand experience that PJ spends a couple of days researching before she publishes anything. And I also know that she prefers to go straight to the original sources (such as the gov't) instead of quoting all the other journalists.

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824602)

Imagine if Slashdot posters and editors did that. This place could be a beacon of nerd enlightenment, rather than a propaganda-spreading, rundown website.

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was? (1)

mystikkman (1487801) | about 3 years ago | (#35824660)

Then why do we have the misleading article, summary and misleading headline here? "turns out MS didn't have certification"? Huh? When did MS ever claim to have certification? It's just made up by Groklaw.

Brain Exploded (1)

malignant_minded (884324) | about 3 years ago | (#35823228)

"And yet, the Department of the Interior chose Microsoft for its email and messaging cloud solution, instead of Google's offering even though Google today explains that in actually its offering actually is"

Re:Brain Exploded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35824128)

Microsoft probably wrote the salient characteristics for the contract.

The Facts? (3)

wheresthefire (584897) | about 3 years ago | (#35823280)

Since when is a legal brief by one of the litigating parties an unbiased source of "facts"? Everything in this post and in the link is stated as fact, yet all of it comes from a single legal brief filed by Google. I thought /.'s standards for journalism were a little higher.

Re:The Facts? (1)

greenbird (859670) | about 3 years ago | (#35823800)

Since when is a legal brief by one of the litigating parties an unbiased source of "facts"?

If you actually read the article you'll find that it's clearly stated that the initial information is from a Google brief and therefore may be biased. And then you'll find in the update to the article that the GSA, who grants the certifications in question, clearly states that Google's claims in the brief are true. That may be just a slightly less biased source supporting Google's claims in the brief.

Editors! (1)

Bromskloss (750445) | about 3 years ago | (#35823364)

"If you were as puzzled as I was by the blog fight, as Geekwire calls it, between Google and Microsoft over whether or not Google was FISMA certified, then you will be glad to know I gathered up some of the documents from the case, Google et al v. USA, and they cause the mists to clear. I'll show you what I found, but here's the funny part — it turns out it's Microsoft whose cloud services for government aren't FISMA certified. And yet, the Department of the Interior chose Microsoft for its email and messaging cloud solution, instead of Google's offering even though Google today explains that in actually its offering actually is. It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'"

Editors!

Error was in original (1)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about 3 years ago | (#35823668)

s/in actually its offering/in actuality its offering/

Same correction I posted on groklaw, but never applied to original text.

PJ is busy, ya know?

re:Microsoft Cloud Services Aren't FISMA Certified (1)

JohnVanVliet (945577) | about 3 years ago | (#35823644)

I like how the Groklaw article ends -- to quote
-quote-
Guys, don't you realize by now that Microsoft is Microsoft? You don't remember Get the Facts? All those "independent" studies that found Microsoft products to be the best thing since someone invented the wheel? Forewarned is forearmed.
-end quote-

keep in mind that
" We are the Microsoft .You will be assimilated . Resistance is futile !

Microsoft never claimed it HAD certification (0)

krizoitz (1856864) | about 3 years ago | (#35824472)

Google claimed certification which it did not have, at best a mistake, at worst a lie. Microsoft did NOT claim certification but is working with the DOI to become certfied. No FUD, just facts.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...