homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.196.201.253
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

    
In Google We Trust - 60% Govt now Using Google Docs
Brett_Tabke




msg:4049121
 4:07 am on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

[izurl.com...]

“Over 60% of the U.S. state governments have gone Google.”

Does this mean that we’ve now handed the majority of our state governments’ operational data to a single privately-controlled company which has well-publicized partnerships with other governments such as China?

To find out more, I contacted Google’s press department. A representative promptly got back to me with more information:

“The reference to Going Google refers to US state governments using one or more of Google’s enterprise products…With regard to data hosting, Google Apps is a cloud computing solution meaning Google hosts the data in our data centers, relieving the customer or gov agency of the burden of managing their own servers in house.”


 

skipfactor




msg:4049130
 4:17 am on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Oh boy. Whipping us up into a frenzy. Liking the new Brett...

end of 2010? 90%+? nah..no way.

subhankar ray




msg:4049142
 4:45 am on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

I do not have any bias for Google <snip>, however, X%(must be big X) of the government using MS Office or Y% may still be using IBM mainframe, Z% using AT&T to communicate and so on. We can find similar statistics like that all the time...

[edited by: goodroi at 12:11 pm (utc) on Dec. 28, 2009]
[edit reason] Please stay on topic [/edit]

loudspeaker




msg:4049162
 6:38 am on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Welcome to dystopia.

IanKelley




msg:4049188
 8:00 am on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Ok, putting aside the athletic leaps to various conclusions, I get that allowing a private corporation access to large quantities of government data should give us pause... During which we would realize that, as mentioned, this has already been done, many times.

But did the author seriously just imply that Google was going to someday sell our government's gmail accounts to the Chinese? The only thing missing from the post is OMG OMG OMG!

Green_Grass




msg:4049197
 8:33 am on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

"But did the author seriously just imply that Google was going to someday sell our government's gmail accounts to the Chinese? The only thing missing from the post is OMG OMG OMG"

Well if the Chinese offerred Brin and co. say USD 50 billion for the data... why not.. After all it is a private co. for profit.

tictoc




msg:4049206
 9:38 am on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

It does make you think about things. Looking at the comments on that post I noticed that someone said they trusted Google more than incompetent IT departments of some of these governments which is probably true... but will lead to more job losses and more information in the hands of Google. Then again companies like AOL sat on lots of instant messenger data from government offices and other businesses and that never really turned into anything too big.

ronin




msg:4049213
 10:19 am on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

Well if the Chinese offerred Brin and co. say USD 50 billion for the data... why not.. After all it is a private co. for profit.

There is a widespread fallacy put about regarding commercial organisations. It is that: the sole raison d'etre of commercial organisations is to maximise short term profits. This has never been the case.

I can only conclude that people who put about such opinions have never been in charge of a commercial organisation.

<offtopic>Indeed, if a company chooses to avoid the tyranny of public shareholder ownership - admittedly Google has not opted to avoid such - not only will that rationally-run company prioritise long-term profit maximisation over short-term profit maximisation, but the company may relegate profit maximisation to second or third priority.</offtopic>

piatkow




msg:4049269
 2:11 pm on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)


<offtopic>Indeed, if a company chooses to avoid the tyranny of public shareholder ownership - admittedly Google has not opted to avoid such - not only will that rationally-run company prioritise long-term profit maximisation over short-term profit maximisation, but the company may relegate profit maximisation to second or third priority.</offtopic>

For most publicly quoted companies the priority has been short term maximisation of the share price.

albo




msg:4049279
 3:03 pm on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

It's disturbing (to me) that governments store their info on commercial enterprise computers instead of their own.

But then (as @subhankarray implies) a government agency's own computer, used as a "tool", must be a computer bought from a commercial company, using commercial software.

Government agencies are still faced by the need of some commonality of data.

No "ideal" world in which government agencies share a non-commercial cloud of hardware and software. Perhaps it is fair that GOOG play a role in the solution.

[edited by: albo at 3:08 pm (utc) on Dec. 25, 2009]

Green_Grass




msg:4049280
 3:05 pm on Dec 25, 2009 (gmt 0)

"I can only conclude that people who put about such opinions have never been in charge of a commercial organisation"

Sorry to burst the bubble.. But short term Profit maximization IS the goal of most corporations. (Most work on quarter to quarter basis targetting maximization of share price) If some one thinks USD 50 billion is small change THEN you guys live in a diffn. world.

Merry X Mas..

Nobias




msg:4049445
 12:46 am on Dec 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hopefully people will wake up (that's how I can word it nicely). From the 'Western' countries Australia will be the first: theinquirer.net/inquirer/opinion/1566179/australia-try-censor-internet

The US and EU will come next (we have to fight terrorists and the nature after all, right?).

BTW> If someone thinks government itself is not-for-profit they are also mistaken.

encyclo




msg:4049479
 3:06 am on Dec 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Does this mean that we've now handed the majority of our state governments' operational data to a single privately-controlled company which has well-publicized partnerships with other governments such as China?

This is obviously false and deliberately misleading, as the fact that those governmental organizations are using "one or more of Google's enterprise products" does not mean that they have put all their "operational data" on a Google server - and even if they did, that doesn't imply either control by Google or removal of control from the government agency.

Talking of partnerships, how much of the US national debt is "pwned" by China again? I know, that's a stupid argument, but no worse than the author's unfounded conclusions that a company with limited commercial ties with a foreign government is therefore susceptible to place any data on their network at that foreign government's disposition. It would be ignoring such small matters as US law, or that Google as a company would be finished and their owners jailed for life if they did so.

It's paranoia, pure and simple. Just like the old days when the crazies saw Windows back doors reporting everything back to Bill Gates. I bet 100% of those same government departments with ties to Google are using Microsoft software too. Just because Google is apparently this season's favourite target doesn't make the insinuations of the referenced blog post any less nonsensical.

Eurydice




msg:4049534
 5:36 am on Dec 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

Google is a publicly-traded company. Anyone can buy its stock. Buy enough and you control it. So, yes, China or Saudi Arabia or Larry Ellison could buy (and control) Google (and thereby have access to 60% of US government data.)

ronin




msg:4049611
 1:06 pm on Dec 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

If some one thinks USD 50 billion is small change THEN you guys live in a diffn. world.

No, it's not small change by any measure. But my point was simply that just because an organisation is a commercial one doesn't automatically mean that it is blind and greedy and says yes to more money every time and completely disregards all other issues.

Admittedly public corporations such as Google are more likely to be blinder and greedier than privately run companies because the former are more likely to be exposed to blinder and greedier controlling interests.

celgins




msg:4049615
 2:41 pm on Dec 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

This is obviously false and deliberately misleading, as the fact that those governmental organizations are using "one or more of Google's enterprise products" does not mean that they have put all their "operational data" on a Google server - and even if they did, that doesn't imply either control by Google or removal of control from the government agency.

Well said.

Just for reference: the U.S. Department of Defense, while not a state agency, does not allow operational/training data to be hosted on any commercial system. The federal government already knows Google's intentions to organize the world's content, so hosting official content within a Google cloud environment doesn't happen.

Sure, the U.S. government uses many commercial software products (i.e. MS Office, Norton Antivirus, Kapersky, ActiveIdentity, VMWare ... and many more) but storing sensitive data on systems controlled by non-DoD entities is restricted.

I think most other U.S. federal agencies can say the same. But I have no idea how state governments handle their data--some of which might be considered sensitive. Like encyclo mentioned, just because a state agency uses a Google product doesn't mean it has left the bard door open.

AlexK




msg:4049664
 5:41 pm on Dec 26, 2009 (gmt 0)

celgins:
(Google product) ... it has left the bard door open

Ah, if only that could be true. I might even start to like G again.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved