Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Should You Store Medical Details In The Cloud? (caremonkey.com)
"Paper forms are a security risk", warns the web site for CareMonkey, which maintains digital and up-to-date medical information in the cloud "for any organization with a duty of care". This is raising concerns for long-time Slashdot reader rolandw, who says he's being asked by his daughter's school to approve using the site to store "her full medical details".
CareMonkey say that this data is stored on AWS and their security page says that it is secured by every protocol ever claimed by AWS (apparently). As a sysadmin and developer who has used AWS extensively for non-secure information my alarm bells are sounding.
Should he ignore those alarm bells and approve the storage of his daughter's medical history in the cloud? And if not, what specific reason would you give for refusing?
Should he ignore those alarm bells and approve the storage of his daughter's medical history in the cloud? And if not, what specific reason would you give for refusing?
Q: Should you store anything in the cloud?
A: Only if you don't care if everyone in the world sees it and tries to use it against you.
What HIPAA guarantees does CareMonkey make?
Read the fine print carefully, I'm sure there are loop holes the size of Montana.
Why is he required to give a specific reason ? Either give your authorization a withhold it, and do not volunteer a specific reason for or against the use. I personally don't see a reason why not IF the storage vendor can qualify as HIPAA complaint it seems like a decent idea, but I can see where the possibility of leaked data can have a negative impact on continued health care coverage as well as the impact on future coverage in both healthcare and life insurance, not to mention employment issues.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
No.
There is already something called MedicAlert, run by the MedicAlert foundation. It's those little bracelets that have a number on the back and EMTs and other emergency professionals seeing these are trained to do a lookup.
It's a system that works that doesn't need "the cloud." You don't even need a computer or smartphone to access the system. Just a phone. Which means it will work where there is no cell service and can work where there isn't even phone lines - radio operators can do a phone patch.
It's /better/ than "cloud based systems" that needs fancy hardware to access which we have seen to be poorly run and insecure.
--
BMO
We can all stop pretending we have any privacy. I like the idea of a doctor having access no matter where I am.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
.
A treasure trove of medical information "in the cloud" is lusted after by too many corporate entities who have little or no regard for privacy, they just want access to more data.
What business arrangements are being made with the school by CareMoney? What data, besides medical information, is the school sharing with CareMonkey?
If it were my children, I'd run fast and far from this data harvesting Trojan horse.
Would you store your naked pictures in the cloud? Probably no.
The same way, probably, men and women would not like to store certain type of information:
- Abortion,
- STD testing
- Sterilization
- STD's
- Genetic Abnormalities
- Addiction
- Health Risk Assessment
Every one of these items, if leaked, have serious ramifications to personal and professional life.
The answer is No.
Cloud storage can certainly be done secure.
Yes it can.
But it never is.
Doing *ANYTHING* properly and securely requires a lot of time, effort and money. Your company's employees are lazy and stupid, and following strict rules is too inconvenient and too much work. Your company's management only cares about cutting expenses because less spending = more promotions and bigger bonuses, AND, when a major breach occurs, the people who refused to allocate the necessary resources to prevent it from happening, are rarely the people who get fired.
The majority of controls they note on their website [https://www.caremonkey.com/security-2/] are standard AWS controls that anyone with an EC2 instance can claim for themselves. Likewise their 3PAO attestations all appear to have been inherited from AWS. Perhaps they did their own PCI compliance audit but I doubt it based on the write-up presented.
I also find the lack of details on their application security practices a bit disconcerting. Why do they specifically call out encrypting password data but say nothing of encrypting user content. They even note that they encrypt the data on the mobile app but are interestingly silent about this on their web database, why is that? Also I find it curious they don't note anything about utilizing AWS's dedicated hosts and storage options which is one of the major requirements by Amazon for meeting HIPAA compliance, I know this is one of the many rules, because we had to sign contracts for our systems agreeing to this stipulation.
Another question is, is caremonkey even legally bound by HIPAA regulations? Do they have legally binding agreements with any covered entity or hybrid entities that subject them to HIPAA regs? It is one thing to say you are HIPAA compliant but if the rules don't apply to you then that really doesn't mean much does it...
Nuclear war would really set back cable. - Ted Turner
Some companies use AWS in a HIPAA-compliant fashion, but many more don't. Achieving HIPAA compliance in AWS is quite complex -- and expensive -- requiring a separate virtual instance for every covered entity (e.g., insurance company or medical provider) and a slew of other sophisticated security measures. And it's not Amazon's responsibility to police companies claiming compliance. Amazon just provides APIs and services that can be built into a software company's infrastructure. But nobody is checking to make sure they do.