Yeah but donations can help make procurement tenders slightly in favour of donors. Or get inside scoop so they have time to be ready.
Except the tech companies are among the politicians’ biggest “donors”.
Public cloud computing companies that want to host government IT workloads still have to be Fedramp compliant. Doesn’t matter how much their donors pay, if they aren’t Fedramp compliant they can’t bid for the work.
AustralianSimon@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Donors would still have to meet the Fedramp compliance standards. So this supports Doctorow’s point.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 13 hours ago
I dunno what “Fedramp compliant” means? Presumably Apple and Google aren’t bidding for these contracts, which are the ones with the power to change the industry.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Its the whole point of this point in this thread. A set of standards the company has to meet to be able to do government work.
Google is, so is Microsoft as is Amazon which is also the point of this post. They had to meet the security and interoperability standards to get the government work. No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.
helenslunch@feddit.nl 10 hours ago
Weird that the article never uses the word that is it’s subject…
Oh, honey…
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
I don’t know how to help you if you’re not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article. It has this important line which we’re discussing in this thread.
“Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”
I’m not going to copy/paste the entire line of posts where the conversation evolves. You’re welcome to read those to catch up to the conversation.
Cool, then it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified. Should I wait for you to post your evidence or will you be a bit?