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
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.