Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
Caveat Utilitor
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?
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 and http://www.businessinsider.com/dear-microsoft-you-owe-google-an-apology-2011-4) 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).
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.
"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.
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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?
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.