Google’s misleading security claims to the government raise serious questions | Hacker News Reader

Google’s misleading security claims to the government raise serious questions

blogs.technet.com

14 pointsssclafani11 comments

TL;DR summary: after Microsoft got a big government contract, Google sued. In their filing, they claimed that Google Apps for Government has FISMA certification. DOJ says no: Google Apps Premier has FISMA certification, but Google Apps for Government doesn't. Microsoft is (unsurprisingly) appalled.

It also may not be apparent from the domain name, but this is a Microsoft corporate site.

Yes, although the banner "Microsoft on the Issues" is a tipoff.

Legal issues aside, does anyone know enough about Google Apps Premier and Google Apps for Government to tell us if there are real security distinctions that would make this something more than lawyers bickering?

The author constantly refers to "Google" as if it's a single person. I think the most reasonable explanation will involve some large amount of miscommunication between several people who work for Google. The author seems overly aggressive, and assumes that whatever "Google" did, it did rationally and intentionally.

Nevertheless, Google's response will be interesting.

While I agree that it may very much amount is 'miscommunication'. You would think - that a company which proud itself on having the 'best, brightest and smartest' would do its own due diligence before openly starting a significant legal battle with Microsoft - a company renown for suing everyone in existence - and complaining to the government that it's basically being anti-competitive.

It's not about rational intent - it's about suing the government over alleged anti-competitive behavior only to not have certification in the first place. Whether it's a miscommunication or something else - the fact that it appears - prima facie - a complete ass up by Google is humorous.

I say humorous only in the sense that it loathes Microsoft with all it's being - and currently it's eating straight up fail cake.

>While I agree that it may very much amount is 'miscommunication'. You would think - that a company which proud itself on having the 'best, brightest and smartest' would do its own due diligence before openly starting a significant legal battle with Microsoft - a company renown for suing everyone in existence - and complaining to the government that it's basically being anti-competitive.

The legal battle is not with Microsoft. It is with "The United States".

Sure officially. Unofficially - it's with Microsoft.

Err..I don't see what's wrong with referring to companies in that way... it happens all the time in almost all articles. If, say the court wants to penalize for the lies in the documents, would they penalize Google's lawyers or Google as a company?

How would you want him to refer to Google as?

>The author seems overly aggressive, and assumes that whatever "Google" did, it did rationally and intentionally.

Said author is a VP and general counsel of Microsoft, what do you expect?

>I think the most reasonable explanation will involve some large amount of miscommunication between several people who work for Google.

It is really hard to imagine such a long and protracted miscommunication over such a key thing while suing the US federal government.

Microsoft calling anyone out on security issues is laughter inducing to the extreme. For those of you that weren't paying attention in the Windows XP/IE 6 heyday, anyone could find remote exploits that bothered to look for more than 5 minutes.

Security is different from certification, which is the article is about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com