Slashdot Mirror
Can We Abandon Confidentiality For Google Apps?
An anonymous reader writes "I provide IT services for medium-sized medical and law practices. Lately I have been getting a lot of feedback from doctors and lawyers who use gmail at home and believe that they can run a significant portion of their practice IT on Google Apps. From a support standpoint, I'd be happy to chuck mail/calendar service management into the bin and let them run with gmail, but for these businesses, there is significant legal liability associated with the confidentiality of their communications and records (e.g., HIPAA). For those with high-profile celebrity clients, simply telling them 'Google employees can read your stuff' will usually end the conversation right there. But for smaller practices, I often get a lot of push-back in the form of 'What's wrong with trusting Google?' and 'Google's not interested in our email/calendar.' Weighing what they see as a tiny legal risk against the promise of Free IT Stuff(TM) becomes increasingly lopsided given the clear functionality / usability / ubiquity that they experience when using Google at home. So my question to the Slashdot community is: Are they right? Is it time for me to remove the Tin Foil Hat on the subject of confidentiality and stop resisting the juggernaut that is Google? If not, what is the best way to clarify the confidentiality issues for these clients?"
If you are in an industry where your internal communications/documents/etc should or must remain confidential, than you cannot trust Google Apps as your free platform for email/document creation/document storage.
If you don't mind the possibility that the world may get your data, then by all means feel free to use Google, or any other SaaS type offering.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
immediately squelch any such thoughts.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
It might be an acceptable compromise. The same clients considering Google Apps are 99.999% likely to have a non-existent or ineffective backup/archiving system, lack the expertise/cash for sysadmining Microsoft enterprise apps and would probably benefit from being able to log in on multiple machines to access their data. All strategies involve risk - if you veto Google, they may be missing out on the best compromise solution. YMMV.
This is slashdot, not legaldot.
That being said, your writeup sounds like you're a contractor/have your own company. If that's the case, the best you can do (Outside of telling your customers you aren't going to and being fired) is make very clear, in writing, what your opinion is, and get them to sign off, in writing, that they are responsible and/or have another way for handling confidential info, etc.
I'm not sure if that's enough to cover your butt or not. See first sentence about this is slashdot, not legaldot. I would consult with a lawyer, preferably one that is not one of your customers.
Tell them about what could happen, and that the risk may be low but not zero. Because data have been exposed through sloppiness before, not only through malice.
Then make sure YOU are not liable if they violate HIPPA or something similar. Either don't support their Google stuff or make sure you have documented that they use Google SAS against your advice.
C - the footgun of programming languages
If they wanna do it, they gotta get a lawyer--a lawyer who knows HIPAA. HIPAA compliance is a pain--and noncompliance can be very expensive.
Lawyer costs may even outweigh the Google savings
Your role, as a qualified member of the IT staff, is to make the higher-ups aware of the risks. Do your due-diligence, tell them the data isn't secure (in person, in e-mail, and maybe even on paper), and remind them from time-to-time (using creative new analogies whenever possible). That's it, you've done your job.
The fact of the matter is, regardless what the policy is, and regardless what they all "agree" on, they're going to put sensitive information on the Web. You'd have to take away their Internet access and portable devices to prevent it, and even then, they'd just go home and use that.
Accept that the best you can do is educate them and provide alternatives.
Good thing you posted anonymously. That means you won't lose clients and we don't have to take you seriously.
I think there are three classes of company for the purposes of this discussion:
If you trust shared hosting providers; you shouldn't care about the Google employees who can access your data
If you trust managed hosting providers like Rackspace, particularly if they're hosting virtualised servers for you; you probably shouln't care about Google employees with access to your data.
If you don't trust managed hosting providers; well you're probably not reading this from the office, and Google Apps doesn't get a look in.
I'd say most companies fall into the second.
I don't understand what "possibility" has to do with it. Your data could "possibly" be exposed if you have your own infrastructure.
A more relevant question is probability. Is there additional exposure through using Google? Are Google internal security practices likely to be better than yours? If you are a small shop outsourcing your IT services anyway then why is Google worse than some other party?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
But google is. They place ads based on the content of your emails (i.e. I get SVN commit messages, and lo and behold ads for SVN related stuff on the side bar). So at a bare minimum they have automated processes reading all your emails, extracting meaning from them and displaying ads to you.
Agreed. Also online aps are more-expensive longterm. For example I purchased Microsoft Office 97, and I'm still using it 12 years later, which is an annual cost of just ~$12. Online aps have significantly higher fees than that.
There's also the advantage of owning the software. If for example you develop a design, you can archive both the design and the tools so they can still be used 15-20 years from now and "resurrected" from the basement. You can't do that with online aps which are constantly updated with no way to "freeze" a tool at a certain point.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That would never work for our military projects. Everything has to stay within the building's walls, including email.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Yea, but I own the network.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Agreed. Also online aps are more-expensive longterm. For example I purchased Microsoft Office 97, and I'm still using it 12 years later, which is an annual cost of just ~$12. Online aps have significantly higher fees than that.
.
Do you really think it's wise or responsible to be using a piece of closed-source software (and one not known for its security, to say the least) so many years after the vendor has stopped supporting or releasing patches for it, and for which known exploits are in the wild?
.
In what way does, for example, Google Apps Standard Edition ($0/year), cost more -- either up-front or in the long term?
.
Do you not think using current tools at the time to produce a file, then ensuring the file is stored in an industry-standard open file format (such as ODF, RTF, plain text, HTML, TeX, or PDF -- or even better, more than one), is an acceptable archive, without needing to also archive a copy of (or later run) a dated (and bug-ridden and proprietary, in this case) application along with it -- which may not even run on machines "15 or 20 years" later, as you mention?
Once something is on Google, the up side is: any computer with internet access can log in and access it. The down side is the same: any computer with internet access can log in and access it.
If something is on your internal network, that already puts a bit of a limit on who can access those files. It's not bulletproof, and you can still get rooted, but it's a limit. The average Tom, Dick and Harry are as good as physically separated from that data, even if they can guess your password.
Once that stuff is on Google, essentially anyone who can guess your password is good to go.
For example, you only need one employee who uses the same password everywhere (it happens more often than you'd think) and has ever shared their home email password with their spouse, or their WoW account with the chinese guy who power-levelled it, or whatever. Or they only need the same password somewhere where you need to guess their mother's maiden name to get that password. (Again, you'd be surprised how many put the real maiden name there.)
Or some passwords are that easy to find out, because they're weak. People use their nickname, or pet's name, or whatnot as passwords all the time.
Some passwords aren't even kept secret. I know the logins for a local hospital _and_ the emergency medical service, without ever having worked there, just because the former was taped to the monitor and the latter was spoken out loud while I was there. And yes, apparently veryone there used the same. So every ex-employee knows those too. Plus any patient who can read or has ears.
So, ok, now you know a name and password for the hospital computers. Now what?
In a traditional IT scenario, they're only accessible from the internal network. Sure, you can try to sneak into a room and use their computer, but you can be caught, so most people won't. Sure, you can try to get them rooted somehow, but again most people wouldn't even know how.
Now move those files on Google, and you have a real extra problem. If that hospital ever moves its data to Google, every single patient who ever read the post-it on a monitor, can try it from their own home. No having to sneak anywhere, no risking that someone walks in on you, no l33t haxxx0r skillz needed. Just point your browser at Google, log in as a doctor, and read the medical data of everyone who ever used that hospital.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It doesn't take a "computer security expert" to know that you're unnecessarily risking your clients' confidentiality by sending your communications wholesale to a 3rd party.
It would be a massive risk of confidentiality breaches. I would rather only have to trust the people working for the law firm to prevent a data leak than have to trust them and the thousands upon thousands of IT workers at Google. Legal files could easily become high-profile overnight, especially if there are special interests who think they can them as a case-in-point for whatever agenda they have; an IT worker at Google might be paid off to leak some files, and with so many IT workers, the chances of finding one who is corrupt or desperately needs money are fairly good.
Palm trees and 8
pgp is fine for a small practice to use between say the receptionist and the doctor. the problem with using pgp to obtain your confidentiality with respect to HIPAA is that emails sent from outside sources (e.g. patients) are subject to HIPAA as well, and unless you can convince all their customers to use pgp, that'll never work.
My advice for the original asker is to take a firm stand with your clients. If there is any way that they can pin the liability on you for recommending use of google apps or other online services they will when the lawyers come knocking. I suggest you strongly recommend against it, in writing, and keep that recommendation on file.
This comment is fully compliant with RFC 527.
IANAL. My only legal credential is that I come from a family of lawyers and judges who are absolutely adamant about their moral obligation to preserve privilege.
As they have explained it to me, once you voluntarily hand information off to an uninvolved third party, the veil of privilege is breached and it can be discovered.
As they have explained it to me, anything you give to Google can be subpoenaed. Google is currently one of the most-frequently-served companies in the world, and Google gives full and enthusiastic cooperation with lawfully issued subpoenas.
If you really see nothing wrong with risking the privilege of your work product by putting it into the hands of a third party, and if you really see nothing wrong with making it discoverable via subpoena, then by all means use Google Docs. However, for my own sake, I refuse to deal with lawyers who use outsourced IT services.
Do you really think it's wise or responsible to be using a piece of closed-source software (and one not known for its security, to say the least) so many years after the vendor has stopped supporting or releasing patches for it, and for which known exploits are in the wild?
Word/Excel/Powerpoint? I really wouldn't worry about it, as long as they meet his needs. (Although, I'd consider giving OO.o a try.)
Outlook - yeah, I'd suggest he pony up for a new copy, or switch to something else.
In what way does, for example, Google Apps Standard Edition ($0/year), cost more -- either up-front or in the long term?
Lost productivity.
1) Lost productivity when the local ISP or some some intermediate router is down? Multiply by each user. (In a lot of places that's pretty significant. Lots of places suffer multiple hours of network down time / flaky internet every month.)
2) Lost productivity as your employees are clicking on google ads and browsing online when they should be working on that spreadsheet or word document, or simply lost productivity as the ads become insufferably intrusive and distracting.
Think about it... you are getting standard edition for "free". Google wouldn't do unless some non-trivial number of users is READING and CLICKING on those ads. If your secretary is working on a budget spreadsheet, and gets distracted by an google ad in the corner of her spreadsheet, gets distracted and clicks on it, and goes browsing for 20 minutes as a result... that costs you money. And THAT is PRECISELY what your beloved partner google is counting on. THAT is their entire business model. Give you the app for free, and then extract a profit by luring your staff to click ads instead of work.
Now you might counter that google ads are unobtrusive and easily ignored. That's true to a point, but I find adds in my productivity apps VERY distracting; far more than I do on the web. I personally won't use ad supported software, but don't find them nearly so distracting on the web. Maybe its just me... But face facts google is a multi-billion dollar advertising company as direct result of people not ignoring those ads. So the ads =DO= work. Maybe YOU don't click them, but SOMEBODY is. And every time they work on someone in your company they cost you money.
I don't object to google apps for home and noncommercial use, and their 'premium' stuff is ad free, as you are now paying them directly for service.
But a business owner who gets his staff to use standard edition? Its idiotic... what's next? Will you switch to "free" printer toner from the Jehova's Witnesses, and in exchange they'll have witnesses wander around your office to spread the good news?
Do you not think using current tools at the time to produce a file, then ensuring the file is stored in an industry-standard open file format (such as ODF, RTF, plain text, HTML, TeX, or PDF -- or even better, more than one), is an acceptable archive, without needing to also archive a copy of (or later run) a dated (and bug-ridden and proprietary, in this case) application along with it -- which may not even run on machines "15 or 20 years" later, as you mention?
What makes you so confident ODF will be readable in 20 years by Google Apps, or that a google apps will even exist? All ODF being a standard ensures is that you WILL be able to write something that can read it 20 years from now, because the specification is documented and public. There is no gaurantee google apps or anything else will run it 20 years from now. And if you are looking to archive ODF, you should probably make a point of storing something that can actually read it too, ideally along with its source, unless you want to gamble on having to implement something yourself from scratch 20 years from now.
Google apps doesn't enable you to avoid making your own backups, and if anything google apps, makes it slightly more complicated. Google apps could disappear tomorrow (unlikely in the immediate future, but possible, and who knows what the more distant future holds; companies have been shut off before), so not only do you need backups, but you should have some means of reading them too... because you can't rely on google apps being available or supporting the files.
Having done a fair amount IT architecture work in the healthcare realm for the past 10 years, I can truthfully say that doctors are really cheap and look for ways to cut a dollar now at the risk of tens of thousands later. They are also early adopters of technology yet are basically clueless on how it works.
The cost of keeping an internal server plus vpn access for laptop use on an annual basis is a few hundred dollars. The cost of not having access to their records because of a fiber-seeking backhoe attack on their buildings access is hundreds per hour.
What _is_ the customer support number for Google if your Google Apps data goes missing? The doctors have your cell number and probably your home phone as well.
To Google, their account is one of thousands. To you, they are a car payment and maybe a few nights at the pub every month. Who is going to take care of them better, not cheaper.
The old mechanics saying comes to mind: "We do things 3 ways - right, cheap and fast. You get to choose two".
Yes. When I was looking for a lawyer, I asked them how they contacted their clients, and where their email servers were located. The guy I eventually chose as my lawyer told me he contacts clients via email, phone and IM only to arrange face to face meetings, and then walked me down the hall to the server room. He introduced me to the sysadmin, and the law firm sysadmin answered more of my questions.
Choosing a lawyer is a big deal. You should treat it like one. Any lawyer who is not willing to fully answer your questions is not worth your time or money.
You forgot the other side of the coin:
Many people seem to believe that using something like Google Docs is just like using MS Office, but the reality is that it's fundamentally different in many ways. Nearly ubiquitous accessibility, collaborative tools, change history, backups, etc. The amount of productivity and work that saves alone is WAY more than any time you could lose due to advertising in my estimation. Your comparison is absurd and poorly thought out as well, because "getting toner from Jehovah's Witnesses does not give you any benefit other than getting it for free. Using cloud authoring software compared to personal software is COMPLETELY different for the reasons I listed above and others.
The fact is that neither one is REALLY better than the other, it all depends on the task at hand, as both approches have their strengths and weaknesses. If I'm just writing a quick letter, then I'm going to use Word or OO, but if the file itself is going to be used over an extended period of time, and especially viewed or contributed to by others, I find it makes more sense to use Google Docs.
Plus, I can't count how many times I've worked with a team on something and wound up using a Google Doc as what essentially amounts to a massive whiteboard to outline our plan of attack and add our ideas and solutions to the task at hand, as well as comment on others.
Google apps, flat out, are not HIPAA compliant, and google will be the first to tell you that.
And your insurance company and their lawyers will be the second.
Actually, this is hardly surprising. HIPAA compliance is for the geeks to worry about, not the HARDCORE ER STAFF who's job is SAVING LIVES you INSIGNIFICANT LITTLE NOBODY! Did you ever SAVE A LIFE with your applebook? Huh? Didn't think so. Now get out of my way while I manage to infect our network with spyware and trojans even after repeatedly being warned about russian ring-tone sites.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
He just has to ask himself whether or not he feels lucky. I work with ePHI every day, and would NOT want to be the first person targeted with prosecution over that. Remember, HIPAA is a criminal statue, not just civil. Lawsuits would be the least of your worries if you ended out disclosing patient information.
Karma: Chameleon - mostly influenced by bad '80s New Wave music
1. Lost productivity due to forgetting the thumb drive with your work at home
2. Lost productivity due to your company's internal network going down
3. Lost work due to a hard drive failure
4. Lost work AND productivity due to computer theft
5. Lost work AND productivity due to accidental overwrite of a shared file on a network drive
6. Lost work AND productivity due to malicious code (viruses, trojans, et al)
7. Lost productivity due to most software's inability to provide a decent collaborative environment
2,3,4 & 6 all affect using google apps too, to precisely the same degree assuming you have even a half decent backup solution.
1 is offset by the internet / google going down
5 not an issue assuming you have a decent backup solution on the network drive
7 most documents aren't collaborative and what you gain in collaboration you lose in script and automation/workflow support
Using cloud authoring software compared to personal software is COMPLETELY different for the reasons I listed above and others.
And contains pitfalls as well as benefits. We didn't talk about any of the pitfalls of cloud apps:
1) No change control of applications or ability to handle training in advance. If google rolls out a new theme and re-arranges the buttons your help desk and IT department find out about the same time users do.
2) If the service provider removes or alters a feature you rely on - tough. Especially if you are using 'free' SAAS.
3) Legal liabilities. No control over googles security policy. No control over googles retention policy. No control or ability to discover intrusions or data theft. No control over their response in the event of a subpoena.
4) Loss of productivity due to the issues that result from running your office suite in your browser. Things are getting better, but I'd rather pull my hair out with Office 97 than do anything serious with Google Docs.
Plus, I can't count how many times I've worked with a team on something and wound up using a Google Doc as what essentially amounts to a massive whiteboard to outline our plan of attack and add our ideas and solutions to the task at hand, as well as comment on others.
There are even better whiteboard solutions out there. Wikis come to mind for 'massive only collaboration document' while actual honest to goodness whiteboard software works great for when you actually need an online whiteboard.
Plus, I can't count how many times I've worked with a team on something and wound up using a Google Doc
This seems more like a 'when have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." situation.
The fact is that neither one is REALLY better than the other, it all depends on the task at hand, as both approches have their strengths and weaknesses.
I can agree with that, to a point, based on pure productivity/cost. But when you factor in legal implications, change control, training, and so forth, I don't think its sane for most businesses to use cloud apps in the vast majority of situations.
I get the same requesets from my clients. And it's not just GMail they want to use. It's the word processor, spreadsheet, etc as well.
I try to tell them that the security is an issue and they look at me like I just said that "Elvis enjoys tacos". It's startling how unconcerned they are about the risk to their confidential client work product especially in light of the fact that if it were to leak out they could potentially lose thier license to practice.
But...but...it's free, they say, with confused puppy eyes. As if free somehow obviates any need for security.
-B-
I don't understand that anti-google "hype", which probably was started by Ballmer :-)
There are many hosted mail solutions, every ISP has their own mail service, blackberry does have one too. There's a load of hosted Exchange solutions. Etc, etc, and businesses USE it. If a google employee can read email, why an ISP employee can't? Because it's in their terms of service? ha!
Rolling your own solution is damn expensive and you need a guy who actually knows something about it, that's why most companies are more than happy to outsource it.
1) Lost productivity when the local ISP or some some intermediate router is down? Multiply by each user. (In a lot of places that's pretty significant. Lots of places suffer multiple hours of network down time / flaky internet every month.)
Google Chrome supports offline use of google apps.
2) Lost productivity as your employees are clicking on google ads and browsing online when they should be working on that spreadsheet or word document, or simply lost productivity as the ads become insufferably intrusive and distracting.
Only the standard free version is ad based. If you upgrade to the premium the ads are gone. For anything serious like outlook integration, you need google apps premium.