IT Projects: Expert Witness, CIO, In-House Counsel & Litigation Forum

Google called off Yahoo deal as DOJ closed in

For what reason might Google and Yahoo have waited right up to the last minute?  Was someone holding out for better terms, which would have made it worthwhile to go ahead, even faced with a long, drawn out legal wrangle with the government?  Will the whole story ever surface?    Let us know if you have any ideas about how this played out.                          Marlene

Previously appeared on Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Posted by Heather Havenstein 

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9122498&intsrc=hm_list

(Computerworld)  Google Inc. called off its proposed search advertising deal with Yahoo Inc. just three hours before the U.S. Department of Justice was to file an antitrust complaint on Nov. 5 aimed at blocking it, according to the lawyer that the government hired to pursue the case.

In an interview with the legal blog AMLaw Daily published Dec. 2, Sandford Litvack -- the attorney who would have been the lead counsel on the antitrust case -- said that Google and Yahoo decided to abandon the proposed deal shortly after DOJ officials informed them of the agency's plans to file the antitrust complaint.

Shortly after the deal -- which would have had Yahoo running Google advertisements alongside its own search results -- was announced in June, Google and Yahoo came under fire from large advertiser groups, which charged that the arrangement would diminish competition and raise online advertising prices.

And an antitrust think tank said the partnership could end up as a "black hole that swallows up Yahoo," thus justifying an antitrust investigation.

Senate introduces IT failures bill: No wiggle room

Wouldn't that be something if the government IT projects end up being better monitored than those in private industry. Imagine IT project managers, etc. having to account for the efficacy of the project if it shows a 20 % variation from original baseline estimates????                        Marlene

Previously appeared November 13th, 2008
Posted by Michael Krigsman
http://blogs.zdnet.com/projectfailures/?p=1142&tag=rbxccnbzd1

The Senate introduced a bill establishing guidelines for transparency and reporting on troubled IT projects. The bill defines specific exception thresholds for measuring critical and large government IT projects. Projects exceeding these thresholds will be evaluated for remediation and possible termination. Here’s how the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) described the bill, which is called the “2008 Information Technology Investment Oversight Enhancement and Waste Prevention Act” (S. 3384):

S. 3384 would amend federal law regarding the oversight of project planning for information technology (IT) systems. The legislation would require chief information officers to identify critical IT projects and would subject each IT project to additional reporting, planning, and monitoring requirements, including corrective actions for projects that fail to meet applicable standards. S. 3384 also would establish an IT Strike Force (a group of information technology experts) overseen by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to respond to problems with individual IT projects.

NextGov added:

The Act would force agencies to think more deeply when establishing cost, schedule and performance baselines for major IT investments. Agencies would be held accountable for their initial projections; if a project varied more than 20 percent from the original baseline estimates according to the standards of earned value management, the chief information officer would be required to notify

If a project varied more than 40 percent from the original baseline, then OMB would have to determine if there were other ways to meet the objectives, or if the agency should pull the plug on the project altogether.

10 tech leaders who could become Obama’s CTO

Previously appeared on November 10th, 2008 posted by Jason Hiner http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=850&tag=nl.e019

As a presidential candidate, part of Barack Obama’s technology policy platform included hiring the U.S. government’s first chief technology officer (CTO). If Obama follows through on this, who is likely to get the job? Here are 10 top candidates.

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama used technology to organize, communicate, and raise funds in innovative ways that gave him an advantage over opponents in both the primaries and the general election. It’s clear that Obama views tech as a powerful catalyst, and with the U.S. facing an unprecedented array of economic challenges, Obama will need to use technology to drive efficiency and institutional transformation.

A part of his policy platform, Obama has stated that he plans to hire the nation’s first chief technology officer (CTO) to play quarterback in driving these changes. A CTO is typically an organization’s top engineer and focuses on outward-facing technologies (see What’s the difference between CIO and CTO) but based on Obama’s policy statements he wants to use the national CTO position to:

• Build a 21st centrury technology infrastructure

• Unite and lead the CIOs and CTOs of various federal agencies

• Architect innovative tech solutions to help solve big problems.  

As a result, Obama is going to need a visionary tech leader who can rally both technologists and standard Washngton bureacrats around a common purpose. It also wouldn’t hurt to bring in a big name — someone who already has a strong reputation that will translate into political capital.

Here are top 10 candidates.

10. Shai Agassi

This former technology head of SAP has the business experience and the interest in larger societal issues to do well as America ’s CTO. However, he’s recently founded his own company,Better Place, to create an entirely new business model and power system to run the electric cars of the future. Because of his passion for that project, it’s doubtful he would want the U.S. CTO gig.

State Department, VA disclose two new data breaches

Database security is non-existent, stolen computers, breach of information files of high-profile citizens, personal details of veterans inadvertently included with public information on federal Web site that allows the public to search for details of government contracts and spending... and on and on it goes.  Who is watching the supposed "Watchdogs”?     Anybody have any good suggestions to pass on to help close up all the gaps and leaks?                     Marlene

Originally appeared in Computerworld on 2008-11-03 posted by Jaikumar Vijayan

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=IT+in+Government&articleId=9118959&taxonomyId=69&pageNumber=1

One affects passport applicants, the other, VA patients

November 3, 2008 (Computerworld) Two federal agencies that have already drawn attention this year for data security breaches are back in the spotlight again -- for the same reason.

One of them is the U.S. Dept. of State,  which last week disclosed that it had notified close to 400 individuals that the data they had submitted with their passport applications had been stolen in a database intrusion.

And last Saturday, the U.S. Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) said that one of its medical centers in Oregon had accidentally posted personal data on about 1,600 patients on its public Web site.

The breach at the State Department occurred in March at around the same time the agency disclosed that some of its contractors had illegally snooped on passport records  belonging to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other high-profile citizens, according to a spokeswoman.

That disclosure triggered a review of the security controls protecting the State Department's Passport Information Electronic Records System (PIERS), which contains records on 192 million passports for 127 million people. An Inspector General's report was released in July and identified "many control weaknesses" -- including a general lack of policies, procedures and training for protecting passport data at the State Department. The report noted that there were about 20,500 users with active PIERS accounts as of May, with about 12,200 of them being employees or contractors at the department.

According to a State Department spokeswoman, 383 records were illegally accessed by a State Department employee. That worker has since been terminated, the spokeswoman said. All of those who were affected by the incident have been notified by the department and have been offered one year's worth of free credit monitoring. The notifications were sent out in two batches, with the first set going out on July 10 and the second on Oct. 6.

Yahoo, Google Revise Deal in Hopes of Approval

Back in September, we posted several articles that followed the Google/Yahooo advertising deal in the making.  Looks like the dust kicked up by the Advertising Groups and the involvement of the Dept of Justice with their hiring of super lawyer Sandy Litvack have changed the game for the two Internet companies.           Marlene

This originally appeared in a posting By Reuters  
2008-11-04

http://www.baselinemag.com/c/a/Search/Yahoo-Google-Revise-Deal-in-Hopes-of-Approval/1/

The two Internet companies have submitted a reworked proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice that shortens their partnership to just two years from 10 years, the source said. The revised deal also caps the percentage of search revenue that Yahoo can collect from Google at no more than 25 percent, and lets Google advertisers opt out of being placed on Yahoo, the source said.

WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Yahoo Inc and Google Inc have drastically scaled back the scope of their search advertising deal, a person close to the discussions said on Monday, in a last-ditch effort to win U.S. antitrust approval.

The move comes after Google appeared to be on the verge of walking away from the partnership, which was announced in June to foil Microsoft Corp's takeover attempt of Yahoo. The deal has since drawn scrutiny from U.S. regulators amid a growing chorus of criticism from advertisers.

The two Internet companies have submitted a reworked proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice that shortens their partnership to just two years from 10 years, the source said.

The revised deal also caps the percentage of search revenue that Yahoo can collect from Google at no more than 25 percent, and lets Google advertisers opt out of being placed on Yahoo, the source said.

Yahoo spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in an emailed statement the company continues to work with the Justice Department and discussions are ongoing.

Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich declined to discuss the details of the process.

Analysts said the new terms could help the deal get past regulators, but questioned whether such a limited partnership would be financially lucrative to Yahoo, which is a distant No. 2 to Google in the web search market.

Mukul Krishna, digital media global director at consulting firm Frost and Sullivan, described the revised terms as "more of a Band-Aid than the extensive surgery that is needed" for Yahoo.

"This sweetens the deal to go through antitrust red flags and gives (Yahoo CEO) Jerry (Yang) some breathing space, but how much money it would add to Yahoo's top line would be very crucial," Krishna said. "And it doesn't answer the question, what after two years?"

Mark May, an analyst with Needham & Co, said Yahoo's willingness to limit the scope of the deal "tells us that other alternatives are either not available or not attractive at all."

Why Google needs better antitrust advice

After reading this blog, Google Ads setup doesn't sound like an even playing field to me. As a matter of fact, it reminds me of Joseph Heller's Catch 22 - particularly the Major Major bit with Yosserian:  Here is an excerpt from  Wikepedia  referencing  the concept:

"...Major Major creates a Catch-22 when he instructs his sergeant that no-one may come in and see him, unless he is not in. If he is in, people must be told to wait — until he has left." 

Even though you spend time and effort on creating appealing ad formats, follow Google's recommendations, according to the basic information provided by Google "Help",  if some Google-hired "rater" does not take a fancy to what you have presented, the "real" potential buyer does not even get a look-see at what you are offering - because Google people are waving their magic wand and "poof" you're gone. 

Anybody out there with Google Ad experiences they would like to share?           Marlene                     

By Fred Vogelstein September 21, 2008

http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/09/why-google-need.html

This is a big week for Google. Its new mobile phone software called Android is debuting, and there will be much debate about whether this much hyped project is going to get any traction. But that discussion may get drowned out by another. It seems as if everywhere you turn in the past two weeks, someone is wringing their hands about Google, the monopolist.

Google is trying to get a mega advertising deal with Yahoo approved by the Justice Department. Advertising agencies, a bunch of big and small advertisers and - big surprise -  Microsoft, are all crying that Google is hell bent on world domination and want the deal blocked. Google says the accusations are ridiculous and has stepped up its defense in recent days to press that point. It says Microsoft isn't really credible on antitrust matters, after all. Moreover, it's hard to be a monopolist when you don't have any pricing power. Google ads are auctioned to the highest bidder, not sold in the conventional sense.

E-mail security advice for politicians

Here is some really sound advice from Chad Perrin of TechRepublic, to follow up on our posting on Monday, Sept 22nd of an article about Sarah Palin's hacked email. 

The moral of this story is that the intricacies of the world-wide Web must be taken into consideration by those individuals whose webs, emails, blogs, etc. are privy to sensitive information. It would be less than ingenuous for these individuals not to learn enough about the systems they are using to understand how to protect sensitive information from access by outsiders.   

Politicians and campaign staff all need to be savvy enough about security not to give the game away to their rivals, at the least.  More so, government officials, members of Congress and the Senate should consider themselves duty bound, even if they do not personally possess sophisticated technical skills, to be somewhat informed about how these tools work, and to be proactive about the governance in place, by putting the security of their systems into knowledgeable and capable hands. Anybody have any suggestions to add to Mr. Perrin's list?  Let us know.                                      Marlene

ChadPerrin September 18th, 2008
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/security/?p=590&tag=nl.e101

How much attention would you give e-mail security if you were running for office?

One would hope that the people who run for public office in this country with promises of increased domestic security would take some pains to ensure their own security during the campaign. High priorities should of course involve things like having good bodyguards and site security teams when making public appearances, ensuring one’s campaign Web site doesn’t get defaced by people who disagree with one’s policies, and protecting e-mail privacy.While I would dearly love to see someone with an at least marginal understanding of technology get into public office from time to time, I know that might be a bit too much to ask at this point on the national political stage. Lacking personal understanding of such matters, however, one should definitely hire people who know what they’re doing and get them to advise on technical matters — and actually listen to their advice.

I could comment at some length on the difference between people who know how to market technology or can run a technology company and those who actually know technology sufficiently to be credible advisers. In other words, I could comment on the inadvisability of hiring someone like Steve Ballmer as a technology adviser. That’s not the point of this article, though. Instead, I’ll just offer a short list of tips for anyone who might want to run for public office and avoid the embarrassment of failed e-mail security: