Slashdot Mirror
Delving Into Google Health's Privacy Concerns
SecureThroughObscure writes "Security researcher Robert 'RSnake' Hansen discusses numerous concerns with Google's new Google Health application, which aims to integrate user's medical records online. We discussed Google Health's opening to the public earlier this week. RSnake mentions that Google has found a loophole allowing them to provide this service without having to follow HIPAA regulations, which, combined with Google's track record of having numerous flaws leading to private information disclosure, draws serious concern. Security researcher Nate McFeters of ZDNet's Zero-Day Security Blog also commented on the article, mentioning several past vulnerabilities: ownership of content issues, Google Docs theft, a cross-domain hole, Google XSS, and a Google Picasa protocol handler issue leading to the theft of user images. He and fellow researcher Billy Rios disclosed these issues to Google, including the ability to steal GMail contact list information. McFeters says it's likely that similar unpatched bugs would allow an attacker to view medical records if a user was also using Google Health. Both McFeters and Hansen tend to agree that Google's vulnerability disclosure/notification is non-existent and really needs to be improved. Currently, Google does not report vulnerabilities it has fixed to its user base, for the obvious reason of trying to hide the fact that user data could have been stolen."
Why would anyone want to put their health info anywhere if HIPAA does not apply. I know that HIPPA is not perfect, but it at least has recourse if info is released or stolen.
Does Microsoft's HealthVault.com, which came before Google Health, receive the same amount of critique?
Let's examine Microsoft's HealthVault.com policies and how they compare to Google Health.
To me, this would be akin to plastering my personal medical records on a bulletin board in a busy public place with a single coversheet on each item that says "Private Medical Information: Please don't read this."
Thanks to the military, I had an introduction to very early "on-line" medical records. Yes, you guessed correctly. Those records are "no longer available." Fortunately, I requested copies of every contact and kept those in a personal copy of my medical records.
Invenio via vel creo
If you are afraid of your data getting stolen, DON'T USE IT.
Quite frankly I'm tired of people complaining on my behalf. Especially when I don't use whatever is being complained about and when the people complaining don't use it either.
Also..it IS a BETA (test). Once they are out of BETA they might actually have to apply HIPPA.
Do you want to access people's google accounts without even needing to come up with an attack?
...
1. Start a website requiring users to sign up with email addresses and passwords
2. Go through your DB and get a list of all the gmail ones
3. Try logging in with the gmail usernames and the passwords they gave your site
4. Over half of them will probably work
5. PROFIT!!!!!!
Last time I tried this, I picked about 10 at random. Six worked. I have thousands of gmail accounts in my users table. Lucky I'm not a black hat.
Security? What's security? People just don't think about it or take even the most basic precautions. This Health Records service seems like a very bad idea from a "what could possibly go wrong" perspective but I don't know if Google is to blame for that
Enough with the HIPAA scare. Most of these PHR vendors privacy policies are STRONGER than HIPAA and are governed by the FTC which is (from what I understand) MUCH stronger than HIPAA rights.
Also, I believe an organization which changes a policy must ask their members to re-accept their policies under FTC regs.
Great response. Most of the people responding do not work in health IT and have absolutely no idea what they are talking about related to what HIPAA actually does -- which is about NOTHING since it just made all the lawyers money.
I responded above how actually the word is now that these PHRS and their privacy policies are under FTC regulations. My understanding is that the FTC regulations recourses are actually stronger than the HIPAA ones anyway. All the PHR vendors have privacy and data use policies that are STRONGER than HIPAA anyway.
Slashdot users are funny in how they think they know everything. I bet most here had to look up how to spell HIPAA.
It's basically common knowledge, what GP is saying. I clearly remember watching both what my dentist's and my GP's secretaries used to type in my data, and it was obviously a client running on a Windows box. In the case of my dentist, there's a whole Windows dental information suite that he runs, which shows him x-rays and everything. He has multiple rooms with dentist's chairs, and each contains an apparently-identical computer; he can view x-rays and records at any of them, so they are obviously networked. How likely is it that this network is separated from the Internet by anything more than a consumer-grade router? Not very.
How much of a threat really is this, relative to tapes left in cars overnight, or the sloppy (or malicious) use of thumb drives? My gut says, "not a huge one," but I don't really know.
The real problem here is that your health care data is scattered across many processing and medical records systems from all the insurers and care givers that you have ever been involved with. This results in doctors not having the needed information, costly redundant care, misdiagnoses, etc. Couple that with the growing trend to have people/patients manage their health care costs, and it becomes clear that solutions like Microsoft's and Google's are necessary and the potential benefit outweighs the privacy risk (trust me: no one cares about your anal fissures) This is far less of a problem in more centralized models where a longitudinal view of a patient is much more readily available (kind of like how the IRS has your tax history).
"Don't be Evil" is localized to the local value of evil.
(It's not funny, it's pretty much how Google operates.)
Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
Of course, your insecurely networked dentist only has access to a small portion of your medical records, while Google Health would (presumably) eventually be caching your entire medical history.
Security concern becomes of a whole different order of magnitude when dental, medical, and mental health information all get chunked into the same system, then it becomes kind of like a Real ID for health; convenient one-stop shopping for all your privacy-invading needs.
And then they will have to buy their own information just to find out what it is. Doesn't matter that you gave it up for free; if you want to know how it is being used or presented, it will cost you.
It will be kind of like the credit bureaus: you can get a free credit report from them (once a year) but if you want your All-Powerful Credit Score, you gotta pay. Sure, it's not a lot of money, but it's still You Paying For Your Own Info.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
If you would have read the WSJ and NYT articles, you would see people in the pilot were NOT concerned about others seeing their medical information. For them, the benefits outweighed the risks. It is THEIR decision, and it doesn't jive with yours, you're not forced to use it.
Great post!
>> Allow Google to store your ePHI is no different than asking a friend to hold onto your paper medical records.
I keep a list of my wifes allergies and medications in my wallet in case of an emergency. Yeah on a piece of paper in my wallet. So having them available online is just convienent. So I guess someone could steal my wallet too.
Also, as if a gave a crap who knows my medical history. You people have 12 deadbolts on your doors too? Paraniod much???
I keep a list of mine and my wifes allergies and medications on a PIECE OF WHITE PAPER in my WALLET!!!
Oh my god!!
And, No I don't have a built in 100,000volt security system around my ass incase sometries to steal it.