It quotes multiple references which are not written by MS employees and they all check out. Maybe you can point out in what way it is biased about the facts?
> As another article makes clear, this is mostly a paperwork issue.
That doesn't give Google the right to make false claims to the public and court. If this was MS, people here would be running over each other to call it blatant lying and manipulation.
>Already, 12% of all iPad users are in corporations, and 1/3 of them are using their tablets as replacements, abandoning their desktops and laptops. It turns out that most managers don't need a desktop. It's not like they write long emails...
I don't know why Linux types support things like iPad just because of their irrational hate of MS. Things like iPad are much more worse than Windows. Anyway do you have a reference for ' 1/3 of them are using their tablets as replacements, abandoning their desktops and laptops' ?
After my other reply I found this in DoJ's document too.
On December 16, 2010, counsel for the Government learned that, notwithstanding Googles representations to the public at large, its counsel, the GAO, and this Court, it appears that Googles Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification.
That's legal speak for lying. You're the one twisting words.
Google Apps for Government, now with FISMA certification.
That's not true(ergo a lie), because certification is pending and what actually got certified was a different product Google Apps for Premier. Now tell me why you think TFA and summary are lying.
Yep, and if you follow throught on the references, you'll find one to check for lies on pages 18, 29, and 37 of a linked PDF document. Unfortunately, they don't say which pages they mean - page 18 of the PDF is page 15 of the fax it was scanned from, which is page 11 of the original document.
From what I can tell, FISMA certification is for information systems, not applications. If Google runs "Apps for Gov't" on the same cloud infrastructure as their "Apps Premier," it would seem to qualify under the certification received for the latter. Is there really any difference between the two, except for marketing? From their website, any difference is not apparent.
The other references to Goog'e's websites do check out. If what you say is true then why is Google applying for FISMA certification again?
>....is basically the same service with a different label on it?
No it's not. It's a completely different infrastructure. If what you said was true, why did not Google say that instead of claiming the new service was FISMA compliant? Also, why did they apply for it again if it's basically the same service?
>And how do I know Microsoft is full of shit? "Microsoft writes in a blog post that..." End of story. If they had a real legal argument, this story would lead with 7 different words "Microsoft lawyers seek perjury Charge against Google..."
It was just revealed on Friday, maybe give them time before jumping to conclusions.
You're the one that's full of shit, trying to karmawhore the anti-MS groupthink on here.
Yes, and Google's App Platform for Government wasn't FISMA certified and thus wasn't qualified to be bought. Then Google sues and lies about having that certification. I'm seeing no reason why Google's lawsuit should be entertained at all. Especially since if this were Microsoft doing exactly what Google is doing the S
First, Google Apps was FISMA certified in July of last year. This is about a subset of Google Apps (because the gov't. doesn't want everyone using the whole shebang). It would be like Microsoft getting Microsoft Office.Net (or whatever they call it this week) certified, then someone complaining that Microsoft Word.Net isn't.
Second, Microsoft doesn't have ANY FISMA certification, so if certification were a requirement, Microsoft cannot bid.
It's not a subset, it's substantially different, your analogy is completely broken. Apps for Govt has a completely different separate cloud for security. And it was certified for a limited scope anyway.
The issue is not about whether certification is a requirement or not or whether microsoft can bid or not, it is about Google blatantly lying on its websites and in documents submitted to the court about the certification. Did Microsoft lie about having certification?
The linked Google's response is pretty weak and does not address why Google applied for a new FISMA certification for Apps for Govt when it now claims it's just a more restrictive form of Apps Premier. Looks like it's sidestepping the issue and the anti-MS folks like you are lapping it regardless of the truth.
>If you have all the right holes open, that Malware scan does more than just launch an page which pretends to scan for viruses, it actually rootkits Windows and you can enjoy a merry week repairing and rebuilding.
What right holes? Are you talking about Windows 7 or XP? That malware scan can't do shit unless you click to download and install the exe from that suspect site and then click okay the UAC prompt. Even if it compromised IE, IE runs in a low permission sandbox that is extremely difficult to get out of, forget about modifying system files.
Slashdot Mirror
Warning, Goatse link.
That might be true, but how does that give Google the right to claim it is already FISMA certified?
It quotes multiple references which are not written by MS employees and they all check out. Maybe you can point out in what way it is biased about the facts?
> As another article makes clear, this is mostly a paperwork issue.
That doesn't give Google the right to make false claims to the public and court. If this was MS, people here would be running over each other to call it blatant lying and manipulation.
>Already, 12% of all iPad users are in corporations, and 1/3 of them are using their tablets as replacements, abandoning their desktops and laptops. It turns out that most managers don't need a desktop. It's not like they write long emails ...
I don't know why Linux types support things like iPad just because of their irrational hate of MS. Things like iPad are much more worse than Windows. Anyway do you have a reference for ' 1/3 of them are using their tablets as replacements, abandoning their desktops and laptops' ?
Google said that Google Apps is FISMA certified
Wrong, the blog entry gives multiple examples of Google claiming that Google Apps for Goverment is FISMA certified. See just below the title here for one example. http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/government/trust.html
Is that a lie or not?
Maybe the DoJ didn't feel it was worth it to pursue charges, but that paragraph in the footnote does show that they think Google was lying.
FISMA looks at servers, physical security and infrastructure too, not just code.
How does that excuse Google for falsely claiming that it had FISMA for Google Apps for Govt. when it did not?
You need to read the PDF. It's on page 13. Read that page fully. DoJ is indeed saying Google lied.
After my other reply I found this in DoJ's document too.
On December 16, 2010, counsel for the Government learned that, notwithstanding Googles
representations to the public at large, its counsel, the GAO, and this Court, it appears that
Googles Google Apps for Government does not have FISMA certification.
That's legal speak for lying. You're the one twisting words.
Did I say DoJ called Google liars? You just handwave about 'twisting words' but fail to say how.
Why do you have to trust someone when you have eyes to go read?
See here: http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/government/trust.html
Google Apps for Government, now with FISMA certification.
That's not true(ergo a lie), because certification is pending and what actually got certified was a different product Google Apps for Premier. Now tell me why you think TFA and summary are lying.
Are you intentionally acting dense?
You need to RTFA.
But Microsoft didn't falsely claim their's was certified, which Google did.
Then why did Google re-apply for certification that they claim to already have?
>And finally, to clarify, GAfG is a subset of GAP (which does have FISMA certification).
Where did you get that it was a subset? Bolding something doesn't make it true.
Even if it were a subset, why did Google apply for certification again?
Yep, and if you follow throught on the references, you'll find one to check for lies on pages 18, 29, and 37 of a linked PDF document. Unfortunately, they don't say which pages they mean - page 18 of the PDF is page 15 of the fax it was scanned from, which is page 11 of the original document.
From what I can tell, FISMA certification is for information systems, not applications. If Google runs "Apps for Gov't" on the same cloud infrastructure as their "Apps Premier," it would seem to qualify under the certification received for the latter. Is there really any difference between the two, except for marketing? From their website, any difference is not apparent.
The other references to Goog'e's websites do check out. If what you say is true then why is Google applying for FISMA certification again?
Did you even RTFA or your parent's post? The issue is about Google claiming something as FISMA compliant in court when it's not.
>....is basically the same service with a different label on it?
No it's not. It's a completely different infrastructure. If what you said was true, why did not Google say that instead of claiming the new service was FISMA compliant? Also, why did they apply for it again if it's basically the same service?
>And how do I know Microsoft is full of shit? "Microsoft writes in a blog post that..." End of story. If they had a real legal argument, this story would lead with 7 different words "Microsoft lawyers seek perjury Charge against Google..."
It was just revealed on Friday, maybe give them time before jumping to conclusions.
You're the one that's full of shit, trying to karmawhore the anti-MS groupthink on here.
First, Google Apps was FISMA certified in July of last year. This is about a subset of Google Apps (because the gov't. doesn't want everyone using the whole shebang). It would be like Microsoft getting Microsoft Office.Net (or whatever they call it this week) certified, then someone complaining that Microsoft Word.Net isn't.
Second, Microsoft doesn't have ANY FISMA certification, so if certification were a requirement, Microsoft cannot bid.
More here
It's not a subset, it's substantially different, your analogy is completely broken. Apps for Govt has a completely different separate cloud for security.
And it was certified for a limited scope anyway.
The issue is not about whether certification is a requirement or not or whether microsoft can bid or not, it is about Google blatantly lying on its websites and in documents submitted to the court about the certification. Did Microsoft lie about having certification?
The linked Google's response is pretty weak and does not address why Google applied for a new FISMA certification for Apps for Govt when it now claims it's just a more restrictive form of Apps Premier. Looks like it's sidestepping the issue and the anti-MS folks like you are lapping it regardless of the truth.
goatse warning.
Nope, that's a picture of Larry Page making a statement about this.
Don't click.
Are you talking about Microsoft or Google?
Faith offers a lot of useless and harmful theories too and no easy way to differentiate between them and the useful ones.
Eg. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15616009/ns/us_news-life/
And the so called useful ones seem to be pretty obvious anyway(more like words from the wise) and don't require faith to 'believe' in.
Could've been an Pre-OS X Mac OS too. So it could be a surprise.
>If you have all the right holes open, that Malware scan does more than just launch an page which pretends to scan for viruses, it actually rootkits Windows and you can enjoy a merry week repairing and rebuilding.
What right holes? Are you talking about Windows 7 or XP? That malware scan can't do shit unless you click to download and install the exe from that suspect site and then click okay the UAC prompt. Even if it compromised IE, IE runs in a low permission sandbox that is extremely difficult to get out of, forget about modifying system files.
If you do the equivalent on Unix, you still have to wipe the system, Eg. see this http://www.linuxforums.org/forum/security/29611-rootkit-infected.html
I don't see what you're cribbing about or anything about the "(thanks Microsoft for not rewriting or adopting Google's re-write, you jerks) ".
Look up XSS.