Slashdot Mirror


LA's Move To Google Apps Slows As "Apps For Gov't." Announced

Several readers noted Google's announcement yesterday of Google Apps for Government: "The new version is a variant of Google Apps Premier edition, and includes the same core apps: Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Sites, Groups, Video, and Postini. Pricing is the same as for Google Apps Premier: $50 per user per year. The certification says that Google Apps qualifies for is called a FISMA-Moderate rating, which means that it's authorized for use with data that's sensitive but unclassified. In addition, Google says that it's storing government Gmail and Google Calendar on servers that are isolated from those used for non-government customers, and which are located in the continental US." This service might be just what the city of Los Angeles needs (though the price may not be right). LA started migrating months ago to Google Apps, and the process is experiencing some delays, as pointed out by reader theodp. "In December, Google tooted its own horn as it celebrated edging out rival Microsoft to win a high-profile, ironically Microsoft-funded contract to supply email and collaboration software to the City of Los Angeles. Now comes word that the search giant has missed a June deadline for full implementation due to lingering security concerns. Google downplayed reports of the delay, saying it was 'very pleased with the progress to date' which has allowed 10,000+ of the City's 34,000 employees to use Google Apps."

17 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. Meh... more cloud stuff by mlts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe it is because I'm an old hand (and I'm speaking for myself here), but there is something about having physical control of data in house, in a data center. This way, unless there is a network intrusion, one knows where critical information resides.

    With a cloud provider, all I have is a promise of security.

    This isn't to say that Google isn't secure, but I personally trust good locks on the doors and all people who have access to the data having signed contracts more than just a piece of paper with a promise that things are secure.

    1. Re:Meh... more cloud stuff by mlts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, data is sent over, but the DB processing and storage should be in house. Another reason to keep data in house:

      Jack, who has some basic Linux skills wants to make some money on the side in his job in a data center. He copies some credit card numbers from his work and sells them. His company takes the heat, does an audit of who had last access to that tablespace that wasn't normal, and finds that Jack was doing a SELECT on it. Jack almost definitely will end up facing civil/criminal repercussions for the action.

      Joe who is working in a cloud provider does a strings on a .vmdk file, gets a similar list. He has no loyalty to the cloud provider's client... that's just some company or organization storing files at his workplace. So, he doesn't feel any reason why not. He sells the list, the cloud provider's client gets the heat for the compromise, and maybe the cloud company may be found responsible for the leak. However, there is no certain audit trail or chain of custody present like there is by keeping data in-house. Maybe sometime in the future some file audit or accounting daemon might show the read or some shell log show the strings command, but it may never happen.

      Again, with data in-house, there is an access log record, a video log from the cameras, a log from the ACE servers of access, the audit logs from Active Directory, the logs from the routers. All of this ensures accountability for everyone involved. Outsourcing to a cloud provider? Got none of that. There is no solid chain of custody.

    2. Re:Meh... more cloud stuff by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Interesting
      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:Meh... more cloud stuff by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Strictly speaking, you only get marginally more security when you run your own datacenter than when you use a cloud provider, assuming that you have competent security staff in your datacenter. The only real risk cloud providers carry that internal datacenters do not is the risk that your data may accidentally be copied into someone else', thus leaking your information; assuming that the cloud provider's software does not have such a serious bug, what more security do you really get? Your datacenter still has to be staffed, and there are still going to be people who are not necessarily trustworthy -- janitors, IT tech/interns, etc. Additionally, it is not that far fetched to demand that cloud providers encrypt your data when it is not in active use, and in the coming years it is likely that we will see more developments in homomorphic encryption which will allow your data to be encrypted while it is in use, further adding to the security.

      My issue with cloud providers is the libre software issue: you become reliant on the cloud provider for your software, and the cloud provider basically holds your data hostage. I really do not want Google to be given so much power -- when Google controls government data, and presumably charges the government a fee for the services they provide, that gives Google some pretty serious leverage and lobbying power. It would not even be obvious -- suppose the government wants to raise taxes on energy used by large data centers, and Google says, "Well if you do that, we'll be forced to increase our service fees..." Does that situation seem far fetched to you?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:Meh... more cloud stuff by bberens · · Score: 2

      I don't understand what would cause you to believe that a person working for a cloud provider who commits a criminal act somehow has a get-out-of-jail-free card.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    5. Re:Meh... more cloud stuff by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jack, who has some basic Linux skills wants to make some money on the side in his job in a data center. He copies some credit card numbers from his work and sells them

      So Jack also has some encryption-breaking skills?

      However, there is no certain audit trail or chain of custody present like there is by keeping data in-house.

      Does having data stored off-site necessarily mean there is no "audit trail or chain of custody"?

      I think you attribute a level of care and protection to in-house data centers that has not shown itself to be the case in real life.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Seems odd by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I work in a relatively small government organization - about 1200 people, only about 350 of which are office workers - and I can't imagine us even remotely considering this. Anything that involves storing ANY of our data on a server that doesn't reside in one of our 3 data centers is automatically nixed by IT. Heck, if you've got a decent IT staff, setting up basic stuff like webmail and the like isn't even that difficult or expensive. Apache, Horde, Postfix, and Dovecot will get you mostly there for nothing more than the cost of a decent server ($2k tops) and the time of a staff member to set it up (and that time, for full-time employees, is typically already paid for, so you might as well use it).

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:Seems odd by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And a small, highly competent IT department will tailor its systems precisely for business needs, saving money and time over the one-size-fits-all Google approach.

      Codswallop.

      A small, highly competent, IT department will make the best use of the resources available. The fact it's small means it's not going to have time to "tailor its systems" for anything. So it's safe to say it'll do the same thing every business's IT department does: it'll buy a one-size-fits-all solution from Microsoft, IBM, or it'll spend some time learning how to put together the same capabilities from open source components such as Dovecot, Evolution or Thunderbird, and the various other free components that do roughly the same thing.

      Sooner or later, you find things that every business needs. They need an email system, a system of published calendars, and some central document repository. What do they need out of the email system? Pretty much everything that Exchange, Notes, Evolution/IMAP, and Google Apps/GMail does. What do they need out of the system of shared public calendars? Pretty much everything that Exchange, Notes, Evolution/IMAP, and Google Apps/GMail does. What do they need out of a central document repository? Pretty much everything that Sharepoint, Notes, a combination of MediaWiki+Apache+NFS shares, and Google Apps/Documents does.

      These are "one size fits all" products for a reason, their one size fits all. Every business needs them just as every business needs one-size-fits-all personal computers, and every business needs one-size-fits-all phone systems, and every business needs one-size-fits-all lights. Insofar as there are differences between the different needs of, say, a contractor and a giant megacorp, that's where licensing and additional services come in.

      Hard to see what a "highly competent" IT department would do differently. Design an entirely new email system that's unlike all the others? Great if they have time, I challenge you to find a small IT department capable of doing any such thing, and I challenge you to find one that would design anything that's neither worse than what everyone else does for the intended users, nor itself a one-size-fits-all system that would work for everyone.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    2. Re:Seems odd by DrgnDancer · · Score: 2, Informative

      No Google is cheaper because it economizes such things. Think about it, Google is already running data centers with thousands of computers in them, it's cheap for them to add another rack or two for what you need. They've probably already got the backup capacity, the redundant data center. They've got hundreds of skilled technicians, programmers, and admins on staff already. They're specialists. All they know is data centers, and it works because they're selling you a data center (or at least a little piece of theirs). They don't have to document your setup, it's just like all the other setups and if the guy who runs yours picks up and leaves he can be replaced by the guy next to him.

      The downside of this is that you get what Google gives you. It's not a perfect system. You can't call up IT and ask them to whip up a new CRM, or change out your mail server for something different. You have certain options, sure. Certain menus of choices, but not the near complete flexibility of in house IT. It seems to me that their are two main questions you want to ask when it comes to using a cloud provider for theses services:

      1) Will it actually save you money? Don't discount this, it will save many organizations lots of money. Google does what they do well, and has definite economy of scale on its side. Do a fair comparison and see if it will save your company money.

      2) Can you afford to lose the flexibility. Lots of companies can. You have to think about this one, do you really need this level of flexibility, or are you holding onto it because it seems "safe"?

      There's lots of other things to consider of course. There's the level of trust that you, personally, have for the cloud provider. How much money you'll be saving vs. how much pain it's going to cost. But really it all pretty much boils down to: Will it save me money, and will it accomplish what I need. Assuming the answer to both questions is yes, it's probably something that should be looked into.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    3. Re:Seems odd by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Funny

      I work in a relatively small government organization - about 1200 people, only about 350 of which are office workers - and I can't imagine us even remotely considering this. Anything that involves storing ANY of our data on a server that doesn't reside in one of our 3 data centers is automatically nixed by IT.

      Yes, every government organization has at least one Terry Childs who's been there for 20 years and who will do whatever is necessary to protect his little fiefdom. I feel kind of bad for you.

      I assume you guys also do your own payroll, manage your own 401a/pension plans, store your own paper archives, repair your own photocopy machines, do your own warranty work on failed hard drives, maintain your own waste disposal landfill, do your own shredded paper disposal, and grow your own fruits and vegetables on premises as well.

    4. Re:Seems odd by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I assume you guys also do your own payroll, manage your own 401a/pension plans, store your own paper archives, repair your own photocopy machines, do your own warranty work on failed hard drives, maintain your own waste disposal landfill, do your own shredded paper disposal, and grow your own fruits and vegetables on premises as well.

      Other than the fruits and vegetables, which I assume you threw in just to be ridiculous, the last government entity I worked for in fact did do all of those things internally.

  3. That's where the money is... by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and Google knows it. The government is flourishing, huzzah!

  4. Thumbs up for Fisma-Apps by Sub+Zero+992 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what you get, and what - currently - only very few federal agencies can afford:

    An independent third party auditor issued Google Apps an unqualified SAS70 Type II certification. Google is proud to provide Google Apps administrators the peace of mind knowing that their data is secure under the SAS70 auditing industry standard.

    The independent third party auditor verified that Google Apps has the following controls and protocols in place:

    • Logical security: Controls provide reasonable assurance that logical access to Google Apps production systems and data is restricted to authorized individuals
    • Privacy: Controls provide reasonable assurance that Google has implemented policies and procedures addressing the privacy of customer data related to Google Apps
    • Data center physical security: Controls provide reasonable assurance that data centers that house Google Apps data and corporate offices are protected
    • Incident management and availability: Controls provide reasonable assurance that Google Apps systems are redundant and incidents are properly reported, responded to, and recorded
    • Change management: Controls provide reasonable assurance that development of and changes to Google Apps undergo testing and independent code review prior to release into production
    • Organization and administration: Controls provide reasonable assurance that management provides the infrastructure and mechanisms to track and communicate initiatives within the company that impact Google Apps

    http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/government/trust.html

    Sure, it comes with a risk (do you have multiple redundant and trunked high speed internet connections?) but also with enorous freeing of public funds.

    In my view, a win.

    --
    They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Ben Franklin
  5. Additional requirements not in original contract by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nobody seems to have mentioned this yet, but it looks like at least part of the reason for the delay are "unforeseen requirements" that weren't in the initial arrangement with the city that Google's had to deal with. For example:

    http://techcrunch.com/2010/07/26/google-city-of-los-angeles-apps-delay-is-overblown/

    As for the delay, Google says that they are working with with the City of LA to "address requirements that were not included in the original contract." One example of these possible requirements that came up is that the LAPD wants to conduct background checks on all Google employees that have access to Google Apps data in the cloud. Doing these checks of course add more time to the adminstrative clock.

    LAPD background checks on Google employees may very well be a reasonable request, but things like this add time to the schedule and weren't part of the original contract.

  6. Re:LA - Buying? How? by filesiteguy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well, it is simple.
    (Trust me I'm not MS fan-boi.)

    For the time period 2007-2009, my department spent an estimated $1,100,928 developing and enhancing two primary systems. This included all development and hardware costs. These systems take in between $300M and $400M per year in taxes and fees and are the largest of the kind by number of transactions processed in the US.
    Vendor systems in this range have been quoted to us as costing between $4M and $6M outright with $500K to $800K/year in maintenance.
    (Our accounting system - which is crap IMO - runs on a shared server and cost $160M.)
    Here's how I came up with the figures.
    Development Costs for JEDI System November 2007 - January 2009
    Software
    MSDN $50,000.00
    Team Foundation Server $10,000.00
    Janis Controls $20,000.00
    Atlasoft Controls $20,000.00

    Analysts
    Specifications $138,622
    Documentation $110,856
    Training $52,100
    Testing $146,178

    Programmers
    Development: $523,172

    Management
    Oversight: $30,000.00
    Total: $1,100,928.00

    Now, you can add in the overhead costs for servers and the personnel to cover the servers. We currently have 89 servers on racks in our server room. These servers must be up 18/6 and are absolutely essential during certain time periods. We have four staff members running the servers and an additional six staff members maintaining our 800+ workstations, LAN and six remote locations.
    I’m a taxpayer also, and cannot stand to see money wasted. If I were to move to the cloud – the ultimate in vaporware IMO – we’d be moving to a service level that is set by the vendor and not in our control. We already have some services moved to the cloud. IIRC, the department spent around $1M on a vendor-hosted system that has been less than reliable and very expensive to maintain.

  7. Give me JUST ONE example by wsanders · · Score: 2, Funny

    Give me just one example of sensitive data that gas escaped from a major cloud service (Google, Amazon, etc), and I'll give you 10 more examples of data that has escaped from an incompetent IT organization's in house systems. Do *your* in house systems allow you to configure ALL your user's desktops and laptops to be completely disposable, with no other software necessary than a recent version of Firefox or Chrome? Never had a DBA accidentally botch a transaction, do your users never accidentally delete email, never had a spearphishing attempt slip though your spamassassin filters? Never put off a software upgrade because your users were to busy for downtime? Never had a backup fail?

    Let's just admit it's all the politics of control, which is fine. Personally, I'd rather not do the shit work of reading log files, restoring lost email and files, forgotten passwords, and cleaning up the mess when a user gets phished.

    --
    Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
  8. Re:Seems like a parallel effort though by RMH101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and get those people to agree to a police background check. Imagine if you were an offshore developer in another country, and your line manager casually dropped into a conversation that the LAPD want to audit you. Now scale that up to the presumably hundreds/thousands of google personnel who potentially have access to that data.