Re:Facebook says new bug allowed apps access to private phot...
by eropple on Friday December 14, 2018 @03:12PM
(#18684224)
> Thank you for directly attacking my character without even addressing my actual argument.
"But it's hard, for no actual reason I will define" is not a meaningful argument. So--when one hears hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
> I would estimate that 40% of doctors today are not compliant with HIPAA, sending X-rays and other similar patient information over email with providers that they haven't signed BAAs with.
Probably true! But that's their own damned fault. Medical has Artesys and similar, dental has Apteryx and similar. This problem is largely solved but for hands-on unwillingness to use them.
Those providers should be nailed to the wall, the wall should not be torn down for them.
> Up until a few years ago (maybe even just a year) you couldn't use AWS to host medical data.
AWS has been signing BAAs since at least...2013? I believe the first time I looked into it was 2014. But, regardless--if your innovation was so tremendously stifled by this, I'm not particularly sympathetic. I've been running my own services and writing them too for at least a decade and you can do thou likewise, I promise. I am, however, saying that today it's very easy to do so 'cause Amazon is all-too-happy to sign one.
Also, I haven't had to use GCP for HIPAA-covered entities--found their BAA pretty easily though!--but even assuming you're correct the idea that you have to, hiss, talk to somebody before getting them to take some legal responsibility for your held PHI, I don't find that to be a particularly nasty requirement. I still find it odd that AWS will just let you sign right through with AWS Artifact.
Azure's all-too-happy to sign one, too. Not that I'd recommend it.
"But it's hard, for no actual reason I will define" is not a meaningful argument. So--when one hears hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.
> I would estimate that 40% of doctors today are not compliant with HIPAA, sending X-rays and other similar patient information over email with providers that they haven't signed BAAs with.
Probably true! But that's their own damned fault. Medical has Artesys and similar, dental has Apteryx and similar. This problem is largely solved but for hands-on unwillingness to use them.
Those providers should be nailed to the wall, the wall should not be torn down for them.
> Up until a few years ago (maybe even just a year) you couldn't use AWS to host medical data.
AWS has been signing BAAs since at least...2013? I believe the first time I looked into it was 2014. But, regardless--if your innovation was so tremendously stifled by this, I'm not particularly sympathetic. I've been running my own services and writing them too for at least a decade and you can do thou likewise, I promise. I am, however, saying that today it's very easy to do so 'cause Amazon is all-too-happy to sign one.
Also, I haven't had to use GCP for HIPAA-covered entities--found their BAA pretty easily though!--but even assuming you're correct the idea that you have to, hiss, talk to somebody before getting them to take some legal responsibility for your held PHI, I don't find that to be a particularly nasty requirement. I still find it odd that AWS will just let you sign right through with AWS Artifact.
Azure's all-too-happy to sign one, too. Not that I'd recommend it.