Slashdot Mirror
Is Win2k + SP3 HIPAA Compliant?
Chris asks: "Our company deals with medical records in a peripheral sort of way (as they pertain to student loans), and due to new laws we are required to be HIPAA
compliant by April. After reading the discussion on here about the new EULA for Win2k SP3, I had a disturbing thought. As far as I can tell, if you use Windows 2000 then you're going to be out of compliance whatever you do. If you install the patch, then theoretically Microsoft could access those medical records (possibly by accident) without 'due cause or need' in the process of updating your machine. If you don't patch your system then you'll fail the security requirements of the law." If Win2k with SP3 is not HIPAA compliant (and I stress the if because no one has made a statement either way, yet) what can non-compliant Medical IT departments do?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Additional thouughts:
Use a firewall to block all traffic into and out of your network, and make the machiens inside use proxy servers (for http) and relays (for smtp) to access the internet. In other words, disallow all traffic that is not explicitly permitted. Log what goes through the proxies and relays, and log attempts at initiation of direct outgoing traffic.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Besides, would you really want to take legal advice from a group of people who are known to mistake duct tape and baling wire for building materials?
is the head title of this arcticle in The Reg.
basicaly it teaches how to deactivate this backdoor M$ is installing in every win2k box.
now, the original submiter could really consider an alternative.
if U don't like free (as in freedom) open source tools, why not a Solaris box with Oracle to keep the data ? Or an AIX with DB2 ? or PostgreSQL ?
does you REALLY need win2k ????
What ? Me, worry ?
Well I cannot speak for the author of the question but I can tell you that *I* was very intreaged when I saw this question. As an IT professional in a healthcare related field I am bombarded by questions re: HIPAA compliance. The HIPAA regs are in such disarry and so unclear that many people in the industry are anxiously waiting for the moment the regs are cleared up and complete so we can "sprint towards compliance".
The problem is not the service pack or the auto-downloader, which can be disabled. The problem is with the EULA itself, where Microsoft reserves for itself the right to access your system at any time. Installing the service pack off-line still requires acceptance of the EULA.
sPh
hmmm intresting point. It should be stated this is only an academic point. The government wants health care to provide resonable effort in it's privacy and security efforts. Win2K, NT, and XP pro will be easy to justify as resonable. 95,98,ME, XP home may be a little tougher..... Anyway, to take the argument a step further, a covered entity could choose to create a Biz agreement or Chain of Trust agreement with M$. This would cover any issues that arose from the EULA. I wonder if M$ would sign it :)
HIPAA is like any other oversight group and only it can decide this is "okay" or a "violation". However, since logic cannot be guaranteed to rule, you cannot guess which. Have your company, preferably through your legal consul, submit a binding request for clarification.
Be certain your lawyer understands he should ask for an exemption until this is clarified. (This will prevent them from sitting on it for two years and then you getting in trouble later.)
Later when HIPAA says it is okay to do "X" and you find MS (or anyone with such an EULA) has absorbed records, your company is in the clear. Do not presume you can later claim a technical solution that was "just as good as..."
This is an issue for your lawyer(s) to resolve, not Slashdot.
http://www.euspirit.org/
Really. It'll clarify things right up. Dollars to donuts there's a clause in there, probably called "Severability" or something to that effect, which states that "if any clause in this EULA is found to be in violation of the law, then it is null and void with all the other clauses still in effect."
Contracts aren't allowed to violate the law. A contract to kill someone isn't legally binding, because murder is illegal. If Microsoft wants to claim they get remote access at will to your boxes, then you get to say "neener neener neener, no you don't, under HIPAA I'm forbidden from allowing you that access".
The proper Microsoft response? "Oh. Well, we're sorry about that. All the other clauses of the EULA stick, though."
So go ahead, get Windows SP3, and then figure out some way to disable remote-root.
Oh, and one more thing--
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, TALK TO LEGAL COUNSEL. WHY THE FSCK ARE YOU ASKING LEGAL QUESTIONS ON `ASK SLASHDOT', ANYWAY?! DO WE LOOK LIKE HARVARD LAW GRADS?!
(Sorry, just had to get that knee-jerk reaction out of my system.)
"Nobody ever got sacked for buying IBM"
If you're just worrying about covering your behind, extent to "Nobody ever got sacked for buying Microsoft" and then to "Nobody ever got sacked for clicking through default Microsoft licenses."
I actually think that people should get sacked for doing this if they compromise their business for the sake of avoiding raising a thorny issue, but it's not going to happen in our lifetime.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
As long as you're being anal-retentive, you should be aware that unencrypted instant-messaging protocols are frowned upon, because medical staff can circumvent all your hard work and simply send patient data back & forth over the IM.
Having said that, if either of these two represents your biggest problems, then you're probably safe for a while. I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by asking Slashdot - maybe you should try checking with your MS rep first to at least get the company line. MS is wild about HIPAA - they produce a lot of BizTalk stuff for hospital EDI needs.
What's your damage, Heather?
How exactly would medical records relate in any way, shape, or form to student loans?
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Furthermore, disable auto-updating and do it manually and the problem is solved, moot, and done.
This is not a technical issue, disabling Auto-Update is trivial. This is a legal issue, the real problem is by agreeing to the EULA they are giving a third party, who has no due cause, access to thier system. Whether or not Microsoft ever actually accesses thier system is not the point, the point is they have given consent and Microsoft could in theory demand access at anytime, say for example to check for unlicensed copies of software. I suggest you get a lawyer who can sort this out for you, it is also possible, however unlikely, a good lawyer could negotiate a different EULA with Microsoft.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
... if your own operating system is tunnelling through http to make requests from Microsoft's server to download patches without your knowledge?
(Unless, of course, you want to cut off MS's websites from your browsers as well.)
Note that disabling auto-updating is a technical solution that assumes that MS won't ignore that setting for any updates that it consideres to be "really critical", either to your security, or to MS's business needs.
A firewall does not prevent the possibility of MS getting access by other means. If it is an agreed to part of the EULA, then they can take such steps as needed to effect the clauses. I would also be worried about the no cause software audits that some MS volume plans have. I mean obviously if you have a search warrant then you have to let them in, even if they might incidentally find some records, but by lowering the standard needed to perform an audit might have legal implications. I would ask your in house counsel, about both the EULA and the licensing agreements.
IANAL, and even if I was this would not be legal advice.
I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
We're currently struggling with HIPPA where I work as well. I'm no expert, but a few things I'd look at:
- Your W2k workstations should not be exposed to the outside world. Firewall or NAT them (or both), and remove the WindowsUpdate icons from them and let your IT staff update them manually (or via pushed updates through your domain, if you have one).
- Ideally, the server with your HIPPA stuff on it should be hidden from view as well. Dedicate a server to nothing but HIPPA file serving if you have to. If it's absolutely necessary to access the information from remote locations (i.e., one's outside your lan/wan), consider serving that information up on a web page via an IIS/SQL type of solution of some kind, but with those services running on another server. I'm not sure if HIPPA guidelines provide for this sort of thing, though.
Yeah, but I thought the hippo was for the javascript app cookbook.
do not read this line twice.
Microsoft has the right to ignore all settings for auto-updating whenever they want.
Of course they can (and will) bundle the DRM-stuff with the next service packs anyway, so sooner or later they will get DRM into all Windows machines.
If so, I guess I would be a bit slower to call other people "morons & idiots". Because the fundamental problem is in the EULA, not in the service packs or download mechanism. One could take all the steps you have described and (potentially) still be in violation of the privacy statutes, since by agreeing to the EULA you have agreed to allow Microsoft access to your systems under circumstances controlled only by Microsoft.
sPh
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The Microsoft Healthcare Users Group. This is a group of vendors that sit togehter on a board that define all standards for healthcare products that run on MS software. To be a member of this group or state that your software is compliant they certify you.
They strictly adhere to all governmental regulations for healthcare records including EDI and storing of sensitive medical records.
The medical industry is a huge economic buyer in the hardware and software industry and MS based vendors have always been in strict compliance with government standards.
1. Check to see if your software is HL7(health care 7) HL7 is a protocol for formatting, transmitting and receiving data in a healthcare environment.
2. Ask your vendor how they store the medical rcords, is it hl7 compliant. I think you guys have a homegrown product? IF your product is home grown it does'nt apply to the governmental standard for handling medical data, the EULA is the least of your worries.
3. IF the product is home grown. Cover your ass.
MSHUG is microsoft centric but a good start for you.
I did medical software for ten years and dealt with all these issues long ago. Your vendor should be able to point you in the right direction. BUT IF YOUR SOFTWARE CAME FROM A VAR, DONT ASK HIM, CALL THE ACTUAL HOME COMPANY! The developers will give you more of a straight answer than the var.
PUTO
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
It does not.
The root of the problem is the agreement that M$ CAN download software on your computer without prior notification. If you agree to that, it really makes no difference if you check a box that tells you machine not to do it. At any time, either pre-programed or by an addition that you make, M$ can uncheck that box without letting you know. Think about it, if you sign a document that states I have the privilage to do something (whatever it is) and then you (outside of that document) simply tell me not to do it, am I legally bound not to do it? It is possible that not even using SUS (software update server) will mitigate this.
Also don't feel secure about non-W2K products either. Most (and soon all, I suspect) products M$ releases contain that same provision. If you have updated MediaPlayer ( I believe it is one with the new verbiage) then you have already given consent for M$ to add software to your machine whenever they choose. NOT Maybe, NOT sometime soon, NOT only if you have W2K, but right now on the box you are currently using. And although I don't have it right infront of me now, I'm pretty sure that mediaplayer even specificly mentions that current features may be removed (playing MP3's) by the unannounced 'upgrades'.
Although we are still evaluating this with our legal staff, it looks very possible that we will be purging M$ products from the vast majority of our network.
oh, DARN ! ;)
And for the record, I am not a lawyer. Don't take this as legal advise. Heck, I could be dead wrong. Localities and Nationalities will obviously differ in their approaches.
___ I don't respond to Anonymous Cowards, and I Never Mod them UP.
Ah, but they are preventing users of pirated activation codes and Warez copies of XP from accessing the Windows Update site aren't they? Wouldn't that also preclude gaining access to the DRM "upgrade"?
All of a sudden that Windows XP .ISO and keygen I spotted on P2P seems a lot more appealing... ;)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
You mean having watched every episode of "Ally McBeal" doesn't make me a leading legal expert? Damn it!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yeah, that'll go over real good.
Elitist IT Moron: We have decided that Microsoft products are no good, and we're going to switch all of our operations to Linux-based solutions.
Docs: Well, OK, just as long as we can still get our work done. Will we still be able to send our grant applications and other records to the various governmental agencies, other hospitals, and such without and problems?
Elitist IT Moron: Well you'll be using this open source word processing program that is designed to be compatible with Word, but there is a chance that some places won't be able to view it properly, or it will look slightly different. Medical companies aren't sticklers for complete and total accuracy, are they?
Docs: What about these hundreds of legacy DOS and Windows applications that do one thing for us, but do it incredibly well, that we absolutely have to have? Will they still run?
Elitist IT Moron: Umm...No. But there may be 0.85 pre-beta versions of comperable apps up at SourceForge we could try! Or we could maybe try Wine and see if we can get a few of them to work.
Docs: So basically you're telling us that by switching to Linux, we won't be able to properly communicate with the people we need to, and we won't be able to use the applications we need to.
Elitist IT Moron: Uhh....W1nd0ze suxxor?
Huh?
What do you mean? What guarantees do I get that Microsoft isn't changing policies again and starts to do really nasty things? Face it: *Anything* can happen. Microsoft might never use their power or they might start deleting warez tomorrow.
It's stupid to be dependent on a single-vendor solution. And it doesn't matter if the vendor is called Microsoft, Apple or Sun.
One might argue that a EULA is more binding because someone agreed to it actively, instead of a law which one basically accepts passively. Oftentimes the laws may have been passed before you were even born, so there's not much realistically you can do, but you have every option of clicking 'accept' or 'do not accept' when the LA comes up.
Problem is, most companies don't accept the agreement themselves. A contractor installs stuff on their machines for them, clicks 'OK' 50 times, and leaves. Much like if we actually had to *pay* taxes, instead of most people having them withheld, if most people actually READ the LA with most software, there'd be a minor revolution.
creation science book
If that is true, and please correct me if I am wrong because I have not taken the full time needed to read the EULA top to bottom like I should. Why on earth would they allow you to turn it off. If it is turned off, they can't update squat can they? If it is turned off this issue becomes moot.
Alas, I will bow to your knowledge on the subject because I have not done the due dilegence to argue. Please enlighten me why this is even and issue if all you have to do is turn off the auto update feature.
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
On a proprietary system ?
...
Do you honestly believe that you can do this ?
I mean, sure there's some "disable remote r00t" clickety-click somewhere - as long as you cannot verify what the OS actually does about it, it means squat. Nobody promised you it would also disable the "remote w00t r00t", or the "hidden remote secret root", or the
There is one perfect solution: Keep proprietary OS machines off the network. Galvanic separation - no cable (and no antennas!) - works 100%
There is a less than perfect solution: Filter off all machines from vendor-X using products from vendor-Y. Make all machines from vendor-X resistant to attacks from the vendor-Y machines. Oh, and be damn sure that the two vendors are not affiliated, and are not controlled by the same government.
Sort of limits your options...
Unless you chose products where you can verify their operation. Note, this does not necessarily mean proof-reading the entire source, if the source is publicly available, the vendor is facing a mutual risk - *if* a backdoor is discovered he loses credibility and goes out of business, *because* there are alternative vendors available. Free Software is very clever in many ways that are not immediately obvious.
consider serving that information up on a web page via an IIS/SQL type of solution of some kind
:)
Cause we all know how secure *those* products are.
I'm not sure if HIPPA guidelines provide for this sort of thing, though.
That's the problem - I don't think *anybody* knows for certain at this stage. Things are too ambiguous (yes I've read most of the regulations)
creation science book
The government can audit you and find you out of complience basically at their whim.
It doesn't matter if Windows systems are a monopoly, and everyone has them. They will find everyone they audit to be out of complience. Auditors are looking for a score, they don't give a shit about your ability to do business.
BTW: This EULA aslo is not FDA part 11 compliant either. Locked down systems would need to be revalidated after any and all autoupdates.
Tee hee, that's funny. Also, are they still running Hotmail on Apache/BSD or did they finally get it moved to IIS?
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
The records would exist in transit on individual workstations and the workstations would need authenticated access to the DB, so MS's access of that workstation could conceivably compromise a centralized database. Also, I would expect that this EULA provision would eventually extend to MS's server Operating Systems. Better to be prepared.
But that's what you are agreeing to when you click through the EULA for this patch. So, installing this patch makes you an idiot. Fair enough.
That said, I'm almost certain that Win2k, with or without a service pack, will be HIPAA compliant since many, many medical and scientific organizations use it for their main operating system, and coordinating an upgrade to something else in the next 7 months would be near impossible. We really don't have much of a choice in what OS to use, though, since if all the programs we need are only available in Win32 versions, that's what we'll use.
I agree with what you are saying, but I feel that these questions need to be asked. Well, they shouldn't need to be asked, because MS shouldn't be doing what they are doing, but I digress.
I work for a very large company and we are implementing HIPAA into our software now. We do all kinds of software for hospitals. The reason I think that this issue needs to be brought up is because most people don't even think about the holes that MS creates. I asked a very similar question to our director of operations a while ago, and he said basically that if the hospitals don't have firewalls, then they have bigger problems. While this may be true, I still think it is good to ask the question, so that people are aware of the "Microsoft issue". The people who maintain the firewall need to know about the autoupdate, so that they can block it at the firewall. They need to know about these vulnerabilitites, so they can plug them. I don't trust that they will be keeping up on these things. After all, who would have thought that the OS you run could create a huge gaping hole in your security and potentially hold you liable for violating federal regulations?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Use Macs or Linux?
I'm in the middle of upgrading a pharmacy's computers to privacy "compliant" software that is supposed to be secure. One of the perks of the new software is the ability to use the internet for data transfers instead of 56Ghey. While talking to the tech support guy on all the details I'd need to know, I asked him whether the transfer was done VPN and what sort of encryption I'd need to setup. He got back to me a few minutes later and said there is NO VPN, NO ENCRYPTION done at all. This pharmacy deals with hundreds of patients a day and for each one, a stream of data is sent CLEAR TEXT across the internet. Makes you feel secure doesn't it?
We are placing secondary firewalls, between the servers the desktop. We have found that most servers have extra ports open, then even if you them off, some thing will get them turned on again. Like a Patch "fixing" a break.
By placing isulating the servers from the rest of the network, we are able to control the port issues both ways. So ODBC and Remote Job Submits can be sent. The app is all green screen based.
Having the second firewall also prevents the servers "getting out" on the internet, becuase we removed the defualt route from the firewalls, so they do not know where the gateway to the internet is.
Discaimer: The poster of this message is not implying that Microsoft is trustworthy. The poster of this message does not trust Microsoft. This was a joke. :)
If Win2k with SP3 is not HIPAA compliant (and I stress the if because no one has made a statement either way, yet) what can non-compliant Medical IT departments do?
Simple use Windows NT 4.0 with SP6a
and exactly why did you switch from it to begin with? what extremely important feature that Windows 2000 has that you absolutely needed?
upgrading because you can is never a good reason.. Most of Big Corperate america is just now starting to roll out W2K servers.. and they Keep NT4 servers running becasue there is no reason to upgrade them. (up until last month the very large multi-national corperation I work for had a policy that NO Windows 200 servers were allowed on the network, anyone upgrading their servers to W2K will be fired without question.)
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It seems to me that unacceptable changes to the EULA for a service pack might void the implied warranty usability of Windows 2000. By releasing the service pack, they are admitting that Windows 2000 has problems. If I cannot get access to fixes for those problems without agreeing to a contract substantially different from that which governed my license for Windows 2000, I think that I might have a good basis for a lawsuit to get a court order that Microsoft supply fixes to their software under the terms of the original EULA.
That's some weird, and kinky stuff going on there. Looks to me as if they are spanking that hippo with a feather.
If your company is of any size whatsoever, you'll need more than just a lawyer who specializes in HIPAA compliance issues. You'll need to acquire the services of a HIPAA compliance and remediation consulting group. Our hospital is using Ernst & Young.
It sounds like you have multiple areas to look at -- your data storage, your data transmission (you aren't just creating those medical records from thin air, are you?), your partner companies, and how you handle the Patient Identifying Health Information on the desktop. Not to mention that your company should have been preparing for this for QUITE some time now.
First, you'll need to make sure that your data storage, transmission and handling (includes handing paper copies around), and desktop security are all compliant. Next you'll find that you are also responsible for making sure that any business partner companies are compliant. This task basically means getting your partner companies to sign "HIPAA Business Partner Agreement" contracts that means the partner company states that they are contractually obligated to handle any patient data of yours in a means that is also HIPAA compliant.
Finally, and most important of all, you'll need to be able to document all of the above, in a form that the government inspectors can easily use to check your compliance. Yay.
Get yer HIPAA-lovin' lawyers on the stick as fast as you can, and file for any extensions that may apply. You will need a complete inventory of any and all computing infrastructure (servers, workstations, network, and software) that touches identifying patient medical data. You will need to have this inventory so your CIO, lawyers, computer security experts and your HIPAA remediation consultants can check the compliance of everything on the list. Anything failing compliance, you'll need to fix or replace.
One last thing: you are also responsible for making sure that the source of your medical data is asking permission to use that medical data, and is asking that permission in a way that is compliant.
I hope this provides you with a decent starting point. Good luck, you have a hard task ahead of you.
OK...Like many of you, I was skeptical that this was an issue at all. How realistic is it, in this MS-paranoid forum, that really you're granting MS access to your system "at any time?" The Ask Slashdot sounded like FUD-baiting. But then, someone made the intelligent point that whether or not MS has real access to private data, the fact that the EULA may cause you to AGREE to give them some sort of access may violate HIPPA.
:) (OK, granted, the Win2K EULA which is a superordinate parent of the SP3 EULA, may include such a clause...)
Well, fight FUD with facts I say, so I downloaded SP3 and here's the actual supplemental EULA. Note bulleted point #3...it does not begin with the same "If you choose..."" qualifier as point #2. I'll leave it the legal scholars and armchair lawyers to talmudically wrangle over what sort privacy violation is inherrent in allowing "OS product" version checking and update installation. I know nothing about HIPPA.
And as for "Severability" clause the parent post referes to...Not there. So, I've never been clear, do I get Dollars or Donuts for winning the bet?
Long-ass EULA follows:
SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR
MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft
Corporation ("Microsoft") operating system components,
including any "online" or electronic documentation
("OS Components") are subject to the terms and
conditions of the agreement under which you have
licensed the applicable Microsoft operating system
product described below (each an "End User License
Agreement" or "EULA") and the terms and conditions of
this Supplemental EULA.
BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING THE
OS COMPONENTS, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE OS
PRODUCT EULA AND THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA. IF
YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE
OS COMPONENTS.
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR
MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL, WINDOWS
2000 SERVER, WINDOWS 2000 ADVANCED SERVER, OR
WINDOWS 2000 DATACENTER SERVER (each an "OS
Product"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL,
COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.
Capitalized terms used in this Supplemental EULA and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to them in the applicable OS Product EULA.
General. The OS Components are provided to you by
Microsoft to update, supplement, or replace existing
functionality of the applicable OS Product. Microsoft
grants you a license to use the OS Components under the
same terms and conditions of the OS Product EULA for the
applicable OS Product (which are hereby incorporated by
reference except as otherwise set forth below) and the
terms and conditions set forth in this Supplemental EULA,
provided that you comply with all such terms and conditions.
To the extent that any terms in this Supplemental EULA
conflict with terms in the applicable OS Product EULA, the
terms of this Supplemental EULA control solely with respect
to the OS Components.
Additional Rights and Limitations.
* With respect to the OS Components only, if the licensor of the
applicable OS Product was an entity other than Microsoft,
then for the purposes of this Supplemental EULA Microsoft
will be the licensor with respect to such OS Components in
lieu of the "Manufacturer" or other entity and support, if
any, for such OS Components shall not be provided by
Manufacturer. With respect to the existing functionality
contained in the applicable OS Product which is not updated,
supplemented, or replaced by the OS Components, the EULA
for the OS Product shall remain in full force and effect as to
that OS Product.
* If you choose to utilize the update features within the OS
Product or OS Components, it is necessary to use certain
computer system, hardware, and software information to
implement the features. By using these features, you
explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to
access and utilize the necessary information for updating
purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to
improve our products or to provide customized services or
technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this
information to others, but not in a form that personally
identifies you.
* The OS Product or OS Components contain components that
enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based
services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may
automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its
components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades
or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically
downloaded to your computer.
* If you have multiple validly licensed copies of the applicable
OS Product(s), you may reproduce, install and use one copy
of the OS Components as part of such applicable OS Product
(s) on all of your computers running validly licensed copies
of the OS Product(s) provided that you use such additional
copies of the OS Components in accordance with the terms
and conditions above. Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or
suppliers retain all right, title and interest in and to the
OS Components. All rights not expressly granted are
reserved by Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or suppliers.
IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO
YOU BY MICROSOFT OR ANY OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARIES, THE LIMITED WARRANTY (IF ANY)
INCLUDED IN THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT EULA
APPLIES TO THE OS COMPONENTS PROVIDED THE OS
COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN LICENSED BY YOU WITHIN
THE TERM OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN THE
APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT EULA. HOWEVER, THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA DOES NOT EXTEND THE TIME
PERIOD FOR WHICH THE LIMITED WARRANTY
IS PROVIDED.
IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO
YOU BY AN ENTITY OTHER THAN MICROSOFT OR ANY
OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, MICROSOFT
DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
OS COMPONENTS AS FOLLOWS:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT
AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE OS
COMPONENTS, AND ANY (IF ANY) SUPPORT SERVICES
RELATED TO THE OS COMPONENTS ("SUPPORT
SERVICES") AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; AND
MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM
WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AND
SUPPORT SERVICES ALL WARRANTIES AND
CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR
STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR
RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT,
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF
NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT,
QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND
CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE
RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF
THE OS COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES
REMAINS WITH YOU.
EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND
CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT
SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR: LOSS OF
PROFITS, LOSS OF CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER
INFORMATION, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, PERSONAL
INJURY, LOSS OF PRIVACY, FAILURE TO MEET ANY
DUTY (INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF
REASONABLE CARE), NEGLIGENCE, AND ANY OTHER
PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING
OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR
INABILITY TO USE THE OS COMPONENTS OR THE
SUPPORT SERVICES, OR THE PROVISION OF OR
FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, OR
OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY
PROVISION OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA, EVEN IF
MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY DAMAGES THAT YOU MIGHT
INCUR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DAMAGES REFERENCED
ABOVE AND ALL DIRECT OR GENERAL DAMAGES), THE
ENTIRE LIABILITY OF MICROSOFT AND ANY OF ITS
SUPPLIERS UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY
YOU FOR THE OS COMPONENTS OR U.S.$5.00. THE
FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND
DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY
REMEDY FAILS ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
I do write lots of stuff that we use, and it's not written to be Win32 only, however, I can't write everything we use. Beyond HIPPA, you have FDA regulations and other rules to comply with as well, and when you can buy something from a vendor that other people (say, the National Institute of Health) are using fine and is compliant, or spend months developing your own custom solution, you're going to choose the one that is working and has support and is tested. If we had the time to write everything exactly how we wanted, we would, but we really don't have the time, or the money typically, to do that.
If the EULA you agree to entitles MS to automatically download updates and you turn off autoupdate, are you still in agreement with the EULA, can you still use the software?
Perhaps the answer is yes today, but will this always be the case? Remember, because of Microsoft you have a "license" to use the software, you do not own it. I believe there will come day when you will need to pay to continue to use the operating system or it will disable itself. For corporations, it might not be so harsh, but may involve sending billing information to Microsoft to provide a count so they can bill the corporation, a large lump sum.
This kind of activation system will also, I'm sure update the system with at least the keys to run for another year and more than likely many more updates, and it WON'T be optional.
go ahead, get Windows SP3, and then figure out some way to disable remote-root.
No lawyer is going to recommend this because there's no guarantee that a technical fix will work or will not compromise some other clause or agreement.
A new contract needs to be drawn up in place of the EULA. I would recommend this for all IT licensing, not just for MS products - shrinkwrap EULAs are of dubious legality at best, especially in Europe.
defualt route from the firewalls, so they do not know where the gateway to the internet is.
Removing the default route does not effectively prevent traffic from the servers getting out to the internet, nor does it effectively prevent traffic from the internet getting to the servers. A properly configured firewall can do that, but just removing default routes is not sufficient.
You don't remember that hue? Neither do I. Yeah, they agreed to pay a 500k "settlement". Big whoop. Your data was "repurposed" and you had no say. Too bad!
sPh
I'd say that you have a lot to learn about Slashdot. While most of the stories on here are technical in nature or have something to do with technology a large percentage of them have to do with the legal and political issues surrounding something technical.
Think about all the stories on copy protection for CD's. Yes, it has to do with a technical issue, but the discussions are certainly not technical. I've seen no code posted no how to defeat the copy protection. 99% of the posts are opinions about whether it is right for the producers to restrict use of purchased CD's in the way they want to, and the other 1% are First Post!
Why don't you just come out and say it? You are a Microsoft appologist that wants to ignore the issue with their EULA by making fun of the issue and calling it a waste of time. You say it's an invalid clause, but you don't indicate that you are a lawyer (and even if you were I doubt you'd be offering official legal advise). So you want us to just ignore the issue and "agree" to the EULA?
What happens if the EULA is allowed to stand and then Microsoft actually builds in more of this access that you granted them? What happens when it eventually gets installed on all Windows systems and then the crackers find out how to manipulate it and steal information off your computer? Then it wouldn't be Microsoft accessing the sensitive information, as I doubt they actually would do something like that, but because of the EULA they provide additional access methods for others.
There are plenty of valid discussion items surrounding this issue. Ignoring them is not going to make them go away, and they definately fall right smack into the favorite topic on Slashdot -- Microsoft bashing.
Every time I ask Google about this it seems like I end up bouncing back and forth between the same three or four sites never quite finding what I'm after -- kinda like pr0n, but not as fun. So here goes...
Does anyone know of any free/nonfree resources, documents or URLs that list the networking, server and policy encryption and configuration standards required for HIPAA compliance? Consider this from the point of view of a network administrator for a small health services company that buys all of its software from outside vendors (no internal development).
Please don't answer http://hhs.gov. I know about those, and I'm hoping to find a summary or sorts, not the original regs. I'm also aware that the rules themselves are vague and unspecific, and may or may not specifically mention networking and servers hardware software and practices, so I'd appreciate that someone confirm that if it is the case.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Breaking confidentiality via the actions of authorized staff is a different risk. The question is about the act of assigning external parties privileges that itself breaks confidentiality agreements.
Ha, ha very funny indeed! So basically you're saying that's OK for a company to stick with a crumbling IT infrastructure just because they mistakenly omitted to acquire the source to the custom apps they deployed 10 years before? So now that the joke who wrote them flew away to Cuba you're stuck, eh? That's strange, you seem to imply that the Elitist IT Moron is about to get fired while I think the ones about to flip burgers are the asses that cooked up this crap in the first place.
Know what? I'd answer that the 0.85 pre-beta apps could be sublicensed to develop them in-house or pay a local/big sw firm to polish up the job and sell you the source (or @ least agree to source disclosure agreements in case of business termination, etc...)
Remember ELITIST M$ GROUPIE, never surrended knowledge of your business to anyone or you balls will roll, sooner or later! And that includes how the bits that live in your ws work.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Do you know those little USB drivers which look like a pen? Well, they are better than floppies, and you can use them in your "legacy free, super secure" Compaqs, I think.....
Not if you're running NT4 on said Compaqs, and I know of one company who still refuses to migrate because of a few similar problems. Think plug & play USB wireless nics, for starters.
What's your damage, Heather?
It's far cheaper to simply change the law and declare victory than it is to pretend you can sue Microsoft. Seriously, start lobbying your local Congresspersons explaining to them that your company might have to close and fire voters unless they intervene. That way they can simply pressure the agency to write an exclusion for W2K specifically. The law was created in the first place to pacify people who didn't want their records divulged. It has nothing to do at all with the industry itself or what is good for health care providers. So if you simply ignore the screams of the populace and change the law you're in a better place,
I'm sure some of you narrow minded twits will think this is backhanded MS bashing but it's not. It's simply reality. When was the last time YOU sued a multibillion dollar company?
Many quite large and busy sites are running on PostgreSQL or even MySQL (true SQL afficiondos are permitted a short vomit break at this point). As they've freely admitted, even Microsoft hasn't figured out how to undercut `free'. Yet.
But forget the server, Win2kSP3 on a workstation means that Microsoft have the right to installer a sniffer (diagnostic software) on the workstation and directly or indirectly pilfer all of your HIPPA data. You gave them that right when you agreed to the EULA. What's the real cost of that?
Meanwhile, IRL, W2k is likely to sooner or later also give every t0m, d1c| and |-|4rry the same ability, albeit not the right to legally employ that ability, as if they cared.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No, what I'm saying is that IT departments work for their customers, not the other way around. You can suggest, recommend, push towards, and even whine all you want. But when it comes down to brass tacks, when the customer "just wants it to work", you're going to do what it takes to make it "just work", even if that means continuing to use MS products against your better judgement.
The point here is that there's no way in hell most companies can just throw away MS products cold turkey. This sort of thing might work for IT shops or code developers, but in most other sectors it's a pipe dream. Not every company can afford (in time and money) to hire on extra people or train up existing staff to the point where they can custom-code apps to replace existing ones, just like they can't expect all the companies or entities they communicate with to suddenly bend to the quirks of their suddenly "not quite compatible" software.
So yes, I do sort of take offense when someone mouths off with "Just drop MS and use Linux" as a solution to problems like this, like it was as easy as switching from Coke to Pepsi in the breakroom.
So, you thought desktop/application firewalls were safe? Think again.
Although MS engineers are not really well-known for implementing clever and working solution, I fear that they might have come up with a similar or even advanced technique of establishing a "stealth" connection.
A corporate firewall/packet filter with some sort of IDS enabled and all MS IPs blocked _might_ work if used in conjunction with an application firewall on each individual machine. On the other hand it might trade in too much flexibility for security. If the individual machine depends on http availability your pretty much lost. You can piggyback/tunnel basically anything through that. Disabling IE and using Netscape might put a hold to that.
But there ain't no verification of that unless someone can produce the w2k sources... And if someone does MS will have a patch ready and automatically deployed in RECORD time...
+++ath0
Yes, I get it. But you're wrong. (-:
The machine is not the problem, the data are the problem. One of the constellation of possible actions which you authorise Microsoft to take when you agree to the EULA on any Windows workstation in the LAN is to install a sniffer (call it `Microsoft Diagnostics for a Networked Medical Environment 6.0' to drive the point home). The data is no use to anyone if it stays on the server, but as soon as it leaves the server and wanders past a Windows box, Bill can glom it and shove it into the `My Data' folder.
BTW, you didn't think the `My' in `My Computer' and `My Documents' referred to the user, did you?
Ah, that reminds me of l0pht's motto: `Making the theoretical practical since 1992'.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You've got three years to deal with the issue until they start fining you (if your company has under $5 million in annual revenue).
If over $5 million, you've still got two years to comply.
Either way, the max fine for non-compliance is $25K/Year, and they don't even know how they're going to find you...
I'm not saying you should slack on this, I'm just saying it's not a "huge,huge" crisis situation. Deal with basic, common sense security and do more research. You've got time to do this right.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Crap, this has been in effect for awhile. I wish they would use dates, not just simple lengths of time.
Deadlines:
The Transactions Rule was published on August 17, 2000. So the compliance date for that rule is October 16, 2002.
The Privacy Rule was published on December 28, 2000, but due to minor glitch didn't become effective until April 14, 2001. Compliance is required for the Privacy Rule on April 14, 2003.
[These are the 24 month deadlines].
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Okay, bucko, that's SIX times now you've posted that same excerpt from the EULA. Can we get some (-1, Redundant) modification in here?
Oh, and to answer your question: "you explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to access and utilize the necessary information for updating purposes."
Note that that says NOTHING about how they will access the information. By the letter of the EULA, they'd be within their rights (which you authorized) to just have a couple of goons march into your computer room and haul the machine back to Redmond for them to update there.
Improbable? Sure. But you explicitly authorized "access", period, not "access over a network connection using a specified protocol on a specified port".
Remember, this is Microsoft legalese we're talking about -- their view of contracts (of wich the EULA is one) is that anything not expressly forbidden to them is allowed.
-- Alastair
Reasonable Assurances... The writer who states that the covered entity need only take reasonable precautions. What is or is not reasonable depends on too many factors. I happen to think that if you disable the feature, that action seems pretty reasonable. I for one, am not worried about the EULA. I'm more worried about things like password protection, access to the file room and the like.
Illegal Contracts... As someone else correctly states, contracts that are contrary to law cannot be enforced (at least the illegal provision).
Covered entites... Chris, who wrote the original message may not need to worry about HIPAA. HIPAA covers mostly medical providers and insurance companies. It also covers self-insured companies and the like, but I don't think it covers loan applications. Of course, Chris could be a business associate of a covered entity.
Business associates... A covered entity must obtain satisfactory assurances from its business associates (accountants, lawyers, billing companies) that the health information is protected. As someone correctly notes, that requires an agreement known as a business associate agreement/contract.
As a side note, I've begun to draft an article about what HIPAA requires... the language in the law actually asks the covered entity to make sure that they have "satisfctory assurances" that the business associate safeguard personal health information ("PHI" although some call it "individually identifiable health information")
HIPAA is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, which is a regulatory nightmare that we will eventually be thankful for.
HIPAA is designed to accomplish three things:
1) Provide employers and employees with a standardized, useable system for transferring health insurance coverage (and/or the payment arrangement associated with that coverage)from one party to another. This would mostly be used to prevent gaps in insurance coverage when switching jobs.
2) Force all medical service providers (such as hospitals and analytical labs) and insurance providers to conform to a single strongly defined set of transaction codes and formats.
3) Mandate proper security for sensitive medical records (defined as ANY medical records of ANY sort that could be used to identify an individual's state of health or medical treatments received).
HIPAA is a nightmare because most hospital data management systems have totally ineffective security. Meditech, for example, is appalling, and homegrown systems are usually worse (I know of one world-famous Oncology Centre where the passwords have not been changed in seven years - hundreds of ex-employees know them all). The most secure is probably SMS (which is slow, cumbersome, mainframe-based, and tremendously expensive) or possibly HBOC (same comments apply).
Adding to the futility is the unbelievably lame way the government has handled the specification, dissemination, and revision of the standards. All the transaction stuff is fine, but the security standards are vague and constantly changing.
We will eventually be happy because HIPAA's transaction standards will vastly decrease costs in the health care and insurance industries - currently millions of man-hours are wasted doing simple reformatting tasks, because medical software companies generally refuse to use anything but government-mandated (HL7, UB92, etc) or proprietary data formats, in order to prevent customers from easily switching vendors.
I am currently searching for a new job because I do not wish to be involved in HIPAA any more. I am a scientist, not a lawyer, and I find all this stuff tedious, especially the intransigence of vendors who simply don't care if their products are HIPAA-compliant.
The clause you've been debating interacts with this other clause, which says that if I don't accept everything Microsoft wants me to take (or give!) then my only recourse is to stop using their software. Microsoft is very close to making auto-update a condition of running their software. They haven't gone entirely to ``leasing agreements only'' but they're very close.
From the mouth of Microsoft:
Replacement, Modification and Upgrade of the Software: Microsoft reserves the right to replace, modify or upgrade the SOFTWARE at any time by offering you a replacement or modified version of the SOFTWARE or such upgrade and to charge for such replacement, modification or upgrade. Any such replacement or modified software code or upgrade to the SOFTWARE offered to you by Microsoft shall be considered part of the SOFTWARE and subject to the terms of this EULA (unless this EULA is superceded by a further EULA accompanying such replacement or modified version of or upgrade to the SOFTWARE). In the event that Microsoft offers a replacement or modified version of or any upgrade to the SOFTWARE, (a) your continued use of the SOFTWARE is conditioned on your acceptance of such replacement or modified version of or upgrade to the SOFTWARE and any accompanying superceding EULA and (b) in the case of the replacement or modified SOFTWARE, your use of all prior versions of the SOFTWARE is terminated.
If only... if only.
Check out DataHive, who makes network servers that assist in many areas of HIPAA compliance. Their products are built upon OpenBSD, and have all the goodiest most companies need, out of the box.
Without knowing more details about how your operation handles medical records, let me tell you that a small medical office can have its IT department almost fully HIPAA compliant simply by installing a DataHive and following the install guide. Even down to the nitty gritty things like locking drives and offsite backup, DataHive has it covered.
Remember, a computer cannot make you HIPAA compliant, but it can ASSIST in achieving HIPAA compliance.
Anytime you see an MS station in a medical setting from now on, admire their bravery for bucking the HIPAA rules.
Doctors don't give a damn about MS. They certainly don't understand that they might be non-compliant and subject to lawsuit. They will drop MS in a second if they find out that this is true.
Btw: My wife is a doctor that's newly entered practice and she's been having me look up this sort of stuff to educate her.
Great thread.
If I wanted a really secure system, I wouldn't hook it up to the internet. Not with *any* OS. Also no floppy drives or removable hard drives. Etc.
I'm not sure just what level of security you need, and what level of access you need, but consider having an intra-net that is disconnected from the internet. Any computer that really needed to access the internet would need to have two cable drops, and just manually switch between them as needed. (This wouldn't stop people intentionally breaching security, but it would be pretty effective against programs.)
Better still would be if the networks didn't share computers. Do you have any need for this data to go over the internet? Even VPNs are less secure than not having a connection. If you must, then use a server that is secure, and that doesn't mean MS. Novell, Unix, Linux, even, I've heard, Apple have good choices. With Apple though you will want to make sure that MSIE isn't installed. Perhaps the Apple version is safer than the Windows version, I wouldn't know, but I don't know, so I recommend against it. Of these, Novell is probably the safest (not really sure here, but that's what it looks like), but they're all pretty good choices with a range of prices and ease-of-use. (If you are new to a system, ease of use can be quite important. It can help you avoid mistakes.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Acually, when I call the vendors of our main applications, I talk straight to the developers, or the database guys, or whoever I have a question for at the moment. If we need help with something, they fly down for a couple days and show us. If we didn't get that kind of support, we would probably do more of our own development, but if someone else is going to do most of the testing, give us all the source and other info we want for the program, and support us like that, we'll buy from them.
As I understand it, as a beta tester, I cannot in good faith sign a NDA when testing a product and run that product on a machine where I have already agreed with current Microsoft EULA's. The EULA seems to force me to disclose whatever happens to be installed on that PC.
No Zen is good zen
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You should give MS a call only to get a written statement of their HIPAA compliance assertion. Anything else should be handled by your own lawyers and techs. I wouldn't trust MS's legal department for unbiased or even accurate opinion. I would only trust them to convey legally accurate information as strictly required by law.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...spam, perhapse?
Or drunk?
How many hurls do you need?
We assessed the "hurl vs hurdle" question a long time ago and decided overwhelmingly in favor of hurdles...
This isn't a legal advice forum, no. But discussion on this subject helps develop the issues that need to be addressed. And it alerts Slashdot readers (many who are IT professionals - and all the ones who aren't) that the issue exists and may need to be addressed in their evironment too.
The smart reader will take the issues discussed here to their own legal councel and seek definitive answers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Folks,I work for a company who creates practice managment systems. I sent this link out and here is a snippit I got. Seems as if this guy has a valid concern, but he would need to keep in mind that software CANNOT be HIPAA-compliant. Since the security regulations have not been passed, then the user implementing this software would not be penalized if records were wrongly accessed. Not until the government hands down specific guidelines to protect user's technology can anyone really act. Not that I know much about how to implement security in a technology environment (or about win2k or SP3 for that matter), IT departments should make best efforts and be conservative in securing their hardware and software.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
At risk of being modded down further, my score on the previous post shows yet more evidence of how badly the moderation system on slashdot works. The people who started the site reward people for opinions like there's. They in turn become moderators who also reward similar opinion and penalize dissenting opinions. So, instead of objective moderation based on the merit of the comment, the mod value really indicates how close your comment is to being /. politically correct.
Vote for Pedro
Docs: Well, OK, just as long as we can still get our work done. Will we still be able to send our grant applications and other records to the various governmental agencies, other hospitals, and such without and problems?
Competent IT Manager: Yes. It will mean changing platforms and learning new software, but it will be no harder than when we moved you from Word 5.5 to Word 6 (Word 6 to 97, Word 97 to Word 2k, etc.)
Docs: What about these hundreds of legacy DOS and Windows applications that do one thing for us, but do it incredibly well, that we absolutely have to have? Will they still run?
Competent IT Manager: For the systems that don't require HIPAA complience, we'll be able to leave the legacy applications in place. For others, we will be moving to updated custom applications, or working with other solutions. The bottom line is we will maintain the functionality, even if it requires a bit of retraining.
Docs: So basically you're telling us that by switching to Linux, we won't be able to properly communicate with the people we need to, and we won't be able to use the applications we need to.
Competent IT Manager: No. It means learning some slightly different ways to do the job, but ultimately you'll be able to do everything you could do before. It will also give us closer compliance with witht the new regulations and enable us to better support you and the rest of the faculty. It will also give us capabilities we didn't have before, and will save the Hospital money in the long run.
I've had this argument.
It's not fun.
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
And then there are the HIPAA message formats.
Health insurance related transactions are not terribly complicated. But HIPAA has managed to create a foot thick pile of documentation JUST ON THE MESSAGE FORMATS. They are unbelievable complex, and of course, they are not XML!
Oh, and if you don't use them, you can get in big, big trouble and go to jail.
Sigh.
The only good weather is bad weather.
When the security regs come out, we pretty much expect the reasonableness standard to apply to everything there as well."
Yeah, What he said.
healyourchurchwebsite.com - WWJB?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Actually, more of a clue than you realize. And yes, I have.
I live with an IT manager for a large University Hospital and am painfully aware of the arguments and budget constraints. I am regularly shocked by some of the decisions made at the upper management levels regarding IT in general, and Information Security (my field) in particular. Yes their budgets are tight, but a little thought could save them a whole lot of money and make their lives easier overall.
Please note that I was responding to someone else who presented it as 'IT morons' wanting to change everything because it was the cool, geek, thing to do. Those aren't valid reasons to change an entire system.
I didn't say it was easy or cheap. But given the choice between paying for an upgrade to XP (assuming XP's licensing doesn't, itself, present unacceptable terms in the EULA) or migrating to Linux/BSD/Anything the arguments are valid. Obviously, some of those legacy systems are still in place because it costs too bloody much to replace them!
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"You see? You are already hooked. Now we need to move faster so that dependance doesn't grow.
Don't create documents in a format where the only application that can read them is controlled by a company whose EULAs say 'We can do anything we like with your computer and you have to like it too'."
In the department of the German Government which deals with recommendations for IT infrastructure and software (for the rest of the state), this was discussed recently. And the outcome was, every time somebody mentioned special software, or access, or compatbility, that only works with Microsoft, the answer were like the one above.
No. I don't think they'll switch tomorrow. What they are going to do (probably) is for now, stick with their legacy apps. But the Government has decided it wants to be "e-Government" too, and so everything must be browser-based and acessible everywhere, internally and externally.
That is a huge advantage, for one thing, there is somebody who says "Things WILL CHANGE", no matter what the users say (so complaining about having to relearn won't do any good). Further, with web-based stuff you are efficiently removing the need for special client software (unless you are a stupid moron and rely on IE-only features). Third, the IT departments can (and they do want to) introduce open solutions in the server space without anybody noticing much, and that's exactly what they are doing now.
So, if the problem will fit into a web-based solution, advocate this instead of bullying the users with SuSE or RedHat CDs. Then, when they are used to using Mozilla or IE (in Windows) for almost all their stuff, the transition to an independant desktop system is much, much easier. They won't even notice the difference if you're clever enough (http://mozillako.hypermart.net/ieskin/).
Home Page