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.
When you get syphilis all the websites you visit will be carrying convenient advertisements for the necessary treatments.
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.
So the only thing protecting personal health information at Google Health is internal policy and "Don't be evil"? I guess that means they'll protect your PHI--as long as you're not a dissident in China.
If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.
Sacred cows make the best hamburger.
I think I found a information disclosure problem with Google Calendar, but after a trying to contact Google twice I have given up.
If anyone is interested please read: http://bramp.net/blog/google-calendar-exploit
and hopefully if this is a bug it can get passed on to Google.
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.
I'd rather die.
Seriously, I really don't understand all of the fuss people are making here about Google Health. Perhaps I have a different perspective as I have worked in the Healthcare IT space for a major HIPAA Covered Entity and built their HIPAA Security program. Let me clear up any illusions you may have... HIPAA Covered Entity != Secure. HIPAA is designed to address the privacy and security of Protected Health Information, aka "PHI", as it relates to treatment (This is a generalization, but is fairly accurate). Since Google is not involved in the treatment of patients, HIPAA does not apply. You would be astounded to who has access to your electronic medical records during the course of treatment. Even something as routine as a blood test would have electronic PHI (ePHI) transmitted between many organizations: Hospitals, Clinical Laboratories, Health Plans, VANs, Independent Physician Associations, and Physicians. Do you honestly think that the IT practices of your local Physician with a $600 Dell PC running Vista Home, no virus protection and a DSL line is protecting your data in a more sophisticated manner than Google? Why do people lose their senses when operating in an electronic world? Allow Google to store your ePHI is no different than asking a friend to hold onto your paper medical records. Your friend isn't bound by HIPAA either. If you don't want your friend to peer at your records, then don't let him hold onto them. Google is offering a convenience service. Like all convenience services, it comes with risks. If the risks are too high for you, don't take them. Google hasn't done anything wrong and they certainly have not found a loophole. Healthcare organizations deal with non-covered entities all of the time. Do you think that the company that prints the invoices for your local doctor, hospital or laboratory is a covered entity? I will admit there is one difference however, since the patient is the one making the request for the records to be transferred, there is no "Business Associates" agreement (another HIPAA term) between Google and the covered entity. Quite honestly, these aren't work the paper they are printed on anyway.
I for one will not be using Google Health for my own records, but that's just me.
TECMATIC - Intelligent Technology News
I always had a problem with a company with the value statement of 'Do no evil' who doesn't spell out what that means in detail. I was listening to Stafford's Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders series this weekend and Google.org was discussing using their engineering talent to recognize epidemics before anyone else. My guess is this is how Google plans to do it. It is clear Google intends to use this data, but I think has done a poor job defining exactly how. Add in the fact that Google has bowed to governments for information on their citizens and I end up with a cold chill. Working in the health care industry, I see the value of patient records that are easy to transfer for the patient, but I am not sure this is the way. The little security analyst in me is screaming bloody murder.
In God we trust, all others require data.
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.
The healthcare org I work at the machines with Impact (amazingly enough) are very much locked down through ScriptLogic, so they relock themselves each time someone logs into them. We believe them to be secure and as far as I'm aware we haven't had security problems with them (at least in the past 3 years)
Also we are currently testing out the Microsoft solution for this, as Electronic Health Record stuff is getting to be a very big deal and we don't want to be left behind...
More and more vendors are doing IE apps instead of thick, much easier to maintain, and normally less chance of conflicts with other apps (except the evil Java...)
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).
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.
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.
No, we are arguing that the security of this information affects peoples' livelihoods and that users should be aware that the information in Google Health does not fall under the legal protections that HIPAA provides for privacy and security when deciding to use it.