What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
173 Comments
- jdbausch, on 02/08/2008, -4/+91corporate data, not under the control of the corporation = risk
corporate data, not secured by corporate governed security = risk
corporate data, not held on corporate owned equipment = risk
(it continues)
I'm sure these are nice tools, and I'm sure they are safe enough, especially for a small organization, or startup, but as an IT Manager, I have to say that if I found one of my users working with this I would be having a discussion with them, and their manager... - meltingrobot, on 02/08/2008, -8/+57If it gets people to stop using Sharepoint, that's perfectly fine by me. ;)
- stoanhart, on 02/08/2008, -17/+55I don't really see what the problem is. If I'm reading this right, it's just Google's standard web apps, except that people who sign up with the same e-mail domain (worker@SomeAwsomeCompany.com), they can see and collaborate with any other users from that domain. I don't see how the IT people could have a problem with this - it's just people using a website.
- MWeather, on 02/08/2008, -2/+31Sharepoint gets people to stop using sharepoint just fine on it's own.
- MWeather, on 02/08/2008, -2/+30Infrastructure for what? Uploading company data to external networks?
- vaconex, on 02/08/2008, -4/+31To those who don't mind, let me remind you that there are security concerns. Perhaps your experience in the tech sector doesn't include $8 million dollars worth of highly sensitive data.
Where I work, I need to know what the software is doing and I need to be able to control who and how it talks to 3rd party people.
Google is an indexer of information, for the specific use of creating an advertising platform. The company's data is not theirs to index.
I understand a lot of companies allow users to access 3rd party applications and services, and that's fine. But to those who deal with highly sensitive material (internal communication, legal documents, schematics and health information) this is unacceptable.
Before you say this isn't a problem, let me remind you that your personal data exists on many computers in various forms. Allowing Google, or any 3rd party, to access it without contractual agreements is unacceptable. - argoff, on 02/08/2008, -7/+32I've worked in IT related areas all over the USA. Trust me, I would love it if google could "sneak" collaboration apps past the "IT desk" ... less headaches if you ask me. As far as security and control, everybody knows that it is practically a charade anyhow. Seriously, I have yet to see an IT department successfully stop people from sharing secret documents, passwords, and God only knows what else in non secure ways. But I've seen lots of IT teams make everybody absolutely freaking miserable with no measurable results other than being a drain on business. In fact, sometimes the worst possible thing a company can do is "crack down" on security - because then everybody will start using secret non secure channels for the sake of convenience.
- myrddin97, on 02/08/2008, -2/+25I don't think it's so much the users using a web site that hasn't been approved by IT, though that's defiantly part of the issue. It's more along the lines of they are working on company files/documents on an unapproved web site that IT doesn't have any control over. You may say, its only Google, big deal. But what happens when the EU decides to try someothersite.com to work on company files/data? And it will happen. Shoot, it's already happening.
- diggit83, on 02/08/2008, -1/+23Dugg, the company didnt spend 50k on intrusion detection systems, fire walls, and not to mention my salary for it all to be bypassed putting the data at risk.
- ainsworthboyle, on 02/08/2008, -17/+34I'd actually think IT departments would be somewhat happy... allows them to focus on more important infrastructure.
- Nougat, on 02/08/2008, -1/+15It's not so much IT as it is data security, and the fact that IT is charged (ordered) to manage data security. Companies' private data should not be stored where its security cannot be fully determined, and on a Google server via a free service is one of those places. The fact that Google (and things like Logmein and GoToMyPC and all the wireless/phone/PDA stuff) promotes this kind of service directly to business end users is analogous to the pharmaceutical companies advertising directly to patients.
- Solkre, on 02/08/2008, -1/+15What users think will make the IT department happy rarely does. USER!
- minder49, on 02/08/2008, -0/+13As an IT professional (laugh all you want, I get paid to take user abuse) I see a problem with this service in that it circumvents our ability to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley requirements. So is Google going to take responsibility if that becomes and issue? Yeah right.
- Nougat, on 02/08/2008, -0/+10Nail on the head. It's too bad that the sensible IT people are outnumbered by the "seat of the pants" IT people.
- bumbledragon, on 02/08/2008, -5/+14"corporate data, not under the control of the corporation = risk
corporate data, not secured by corporate governed security = risk
corporate data, not held on corporate owned equipment = risk "
I get really annoyed with this mentality. First of all, check out Google's whitepaper on their security regarding Google Apps (http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/admins/pdf/ds ... For those too lazy to read it, Google agrees not to look at or distribute your data unless required by law.
I really don't understand the argument of having to keep your data on company owned, company managed, company governed equipment. As an IT Manager, I look at this from a risk perspective. Is my risk of data spills (and other ills) higher or lower than hosting it on Google's infrastructure? Well, unless my company's job is data, Google can probably offer better physical and network security than my company.
If you are worried about it from a compliance stand point, Google has a nice offering from Postni that covers a lot of the compliance stuff.
Ultimately, a lot of IT people have this knee jerk reaction to hosted solutions, because they realize it puts them out of a job. However, just like everyone keeps there money in banks because banks do a better job of the task, I see outsourcing information services to companies like Google and Amazon as inevitably. Your company can't afford to waste all of its time and effort on expensive IT and outsourcing it to those with the proper infrastructure is the better solution for most non-IT focused companies. - brickbat, on 02/08/2008, -3/+12The only admin that will block google.com is one that has already found another job.
- Nougat, on 02/08/2008, -0/+8Prove that that risk doesn't exist. Prove it to SOX compliance auditors. Prove it to PCI compliance auditors. Prove it to the board of directors. Prove it to the shareholders.
Yes, you and I know that the risk is negligible. Proving that to non-technical people who have concerns about information security is impossible, because you not only do not have control over Google's servers, you can't even say *how* they are secured. You can't demonstrate that it is impossible for someone outside the company to access the information, because you do not control the servers the information lives on.
Those non-technical people above? They have the power to kill your business, fire you, or both. You'd better start caring. - TheSwashbuckler, on 02/08/2008, -0/+8Google's goal is to get companies to put their infrastructure in the cloud...
- breckinshire, on 02/08/2008, -0/+7We are? *****, I gotta go.
- lohphat, on 02/08/2008, -6/+12Everyone loves to rag on IT departments but most don't realize that they're responsible for protecting the company against unauthorizes access to company resources and more importantly regulatory reporting by law (e.g. document retention, logging of communications, protection of sensitive data). Having software auto-install or add features without review actually places the company at risk.
- systemdowned, on 02/08/2008, -1/+7This is the attitude that gives IT a bad name. IT gets ***** on constantly even though IT is what keeps your business running so you can have a job. I guess you'd like to go back to typewriters, snail mail, and handwriting everything b/c IT has done such a disservice to you.
- MindTrigger, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6The main problem with putting your data in a remote location, is that you are relying on the internet in order for your business to be functioning. I would never recommend that one of my clients put all of their business docs up on a remote service like this without recommending redundant internet connections with different ISPs. Even then I would make sure they understand the risks.
- phoomp, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6Nothing, short of completely locked-down users, makes the IT department happy.
- AgentAce, on 02/08/2008, -1/+7Not all organizations need such stringent security. In an organization like mine where we simply provide services to independent sales contractors, this could be a benefit.
- ninsei, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6And that's why IT Departments treat you that way, b/c you have that same sense of entitlement and superiority that many employees have. You have no respect for the people that "support" you as you treat them like they "serve" you instead.
If your computer doesn't work you don't generate SH*T! So your IT Department has as much claim to the revenue you generate as you do. It is a combined effort that provides the company the ability to operate and complete it's transactions regardless of who the face is. - spyrochaete, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6Having to check documents in and out is a big deterrent. SharePoint is better and more flexible than Google Apps in pretty much every single way except that Apps lets many people edit one file simultaneously.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6Data leakage, backup, security in general are all potential problems in this.
- sundancekid503, on 02/08/2008, -2/+8Nothing short of tentacle porn will make the IT department "happy".
- aaron.dunlap, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6"One problem with that: IT administrators tend to fervently dislike the sudden appearance of unapproved applications, even if said software package promises world peace, actually delivers all those free iPods, and periodically spits gold doubloons out of the CD-ROM drive."
dugg for that line alone.
but on a serious note, keep your corporations data within the corporation. it lessens the likelihood of the SEC showing up at your doorstep. - spyrochaete, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5You hit the nail on the head there. That's why companies outside the US can't take Google Apps seriously - you'd have to be insane to put your corporate data at the mercy of the US government.
- manicallday, on 02/08/2008, -2/+7As long as you don't bring a virus in then I wouldn't care. More time for me to do other stuff - like removing the old collaboration software.
- thenutty1, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4I think you have a ***** IT manager.
- Buelldozer, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4I don't see anyone discussing the regulatory concerns surrounding this. SoX and HPPA are not just suggestions they are laws and you can go to prison for violating them. There is absolutely no way that you could remain SoX compliant with the Google environment and the same is true for HPPA.
There are certain types of information that are legally restricted. It's not up to you whether you want to upload them to Google or not. It's the job of the I.T. Department to enforce this for the good of the company.
Bitch all you want about clueless and/or heavy handed I.T. departments but they do have their place. - ScaredOfTheMan, on 02/08/2008, -3/+7Well if you are on of the many people who have had their personal data stolen form TJX (TJ Max, marshalls) then you would agree, that keeping data inside the network is a security risk too!
The sad part is, apps like this will (in time) change the landscape of desktop computing and ultimately reducing the role of the IT staff to that of hardware break fix...and how much longer after that before it is completely outsourced.
My advice to my small and medium IT Operations staff (that is not directly involved with your company's line of business) is to start up training now and move along, before you wake up and find your skills of troubleshooting office completely worthless because it runs in the cloud.
A bit dire, yes, but its not that far off. - saznap, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4Then get rid of your IT department and see what happens.
The college I work for discussed using Google apps for Education and very quickly deemed it created too many scenarios in which simple negligence on the part of employees, not Google, could violate FERPA policies. - TomFrost, on 02/08/2008, -2/+6What the ***** does that mean?
- ukfoole, on 02/08/2008, -4/+8C: "Hi, how do you add a file to this Google doc thingie?"
IT: "Google doc thing? We don't have any system set up with Google Docs."
C: "Yeah we do, my team uses it all the time and we have docs in there and I need to add this one, tell me how to do it now."
IT: "I wish I could, but we have never set up Google docs for the business."
C: "I know you didn't set it up, it was Peterson's 14 year old who came in on Saturday and set it up, he is more competent than you. You all should be fired for being so stupid. Heck, he even went to all our PC's and removed that teddy bear icon from the Windows directory because one of the Secretaries got a very important email that it was a virus. It must have infected everything real bad because now our PCs don't even work right, I don't know how you propeller-heads missed that." - Cmstech, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4and sometimes supporting the "product" is protecting them from themselves.
- cliffzdude, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4Not HIPAA compliant. Don't know what HIPAA is? Then you won't understand why this is a bad idea. Google's going to eat it on this one.
- MWeather, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4I'm sure Akbar in Pakistan will make you appreciate in-house IT. Especially when he can't hep you due to a severed underwater cable.
- MWeather, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4What if their job requires them to obtain various pieces of information? Even the stock boys at my work need to use google occasionally.
- MindTrigger, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3*most organizations*..... I take it you don't work in IT. Most larger, well funded organizations *usually* have a clue about IT. The lion's share do not even know to back up their own data.
- SanTe, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3And yet it's 100% accurate. Funny how that works.
- Xiol, on 02/08/2008, -12/+15What's wrong with Sharepoint?
Or is it just because it's a Microsoft product that your comment is getting upmodded?
We use Sharepoint as part of our Virtual Learning Environment, and it's pretty awesome.
Anyway, whatever. Just go click that thumb down button cos I said an MS product was good. - jololli, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3certified?
- TedTschopp, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3The real reason IT acts the way it does is that they have been empowered by the C-Level employees, and the company lawyers, of the company to protect the information of the company. Over the last 5 years hundreds of millions of peoples personal information has gone missing from companies here in the United States. Identiy theft is one of the most disconcerting crimes of our time. It's IT's job to create an enviroment where personal, private, confidential, and secret infomraiton is kept safe. Many times that means limiting the tools and functionality of the tools employees have access to.
While I agree that IT is not really a income source for the company many times we are part of a Risk mitigation strategy that has been mandated to comply with legal, reglatory, and PR reasons. - MindTrigger, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3The main reason for that is the IT Dept will still be held accountable if this unknown software in some way harms the company. That may seem illogical to you, but ask any IT guy who has been throw under the bus by an ***** boss who is trying to save his own job, or just simply looking for someone to take his frustration out on.
IT people are also security people, so they aren't a big fan of introducing wildcards to their systems. Having said that, IT people also need to be flexible, and make sure they make their positions clear on the risks of such things. You must cover your own ass. - tehdan, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4What about companies with 50,000 employees spread across hundreds of sites in tens of countries on a managed network, many of whom need to use the internet on a daily basis? Blocking Google in its entirety is sheer idiocy, and any IT manager worth their salt would know that.
I do agree that this suite of tools probably isn't a good move for IT departments, though. - AgentAce, on 02/08/2008, -8/+11As director of an IT department, I started encouraging this use to our people last week. This is a wonderful alternative to the overprice monstrosity known as "sharepoint."
- breckinshire, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3You've screwed me for the last time, Google! I'm going to go google "revenge" right now!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 173 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is