Groklaw: Microsoft Cloud Services Aren't FISMA Certified

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.'"

Comments

Voice from the Other Side?

[oldhack]

Maybe Groklaw should stick around?

Big F*cking Surprise

[npsimons]

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

[WindBourne]

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

And she thought that groklaw was not worth doing

[WindBourne]

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:ask me if I care?

[clang_jangle]

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.

Uh, Where is the news here?

[xkr]

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

Re:Uh, Where is the news here?

[sco08y]

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.

Did Microsoft ever claim it was?

[flimflammer]

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?

[cbhacking]

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?

[mystikkman]

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?

[BasilBrush]

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

And that claim by Microsoft was in fact the lie, and Google wasn't lying.

Wrong terminology

[Bunzinator]

It calls Microsoft's FUD 'irresponsible.'? 'Fraudulent' would be a better adjective.

Re:ask me if I care?

[RobbieThe1st]

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:Getting worse by the minute

[TubeSteak]

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:ask me if I care?

[clang_jangle]

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.