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

Re:Did Microsoft ever claim it was?

[tgd]

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?

[greenbird]

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?

[whoever57]

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.

No, you are the one being disingenuous. Neither Groklaw nor the summary imply that "MS said it's offering was FISMA certified". You read this into your interpretation and then complain about Groklaw for saying something it did not. Pot, meet kettle. Go back to your desk at Redmond!