3 ms·

this is a strawman argument. Ppl will likely die because of this leak, I don't think there was any informed decision weighing the risks of both approaches befo

this is a strawman argument. Ppl will likely die because of this leak, I don't think there was any informed decision weighing the risks of both approaches before making the choice. Every year I see leak after leak in medical data, I am only an developer not in the industry, but the nature of the leak has always indicated massive incompetentence and poor design or ops, rather than than real need for patience care. Storing data in public S3 bucket has nothing to do with patient care, unwilling to invest to upgrade from windows XP has nothing to do with abiltiy to give care. Ransomware attacks because of aging stack has nought to do with privacy or care. There is very very little need to aggregate data given the risk of leaks, and very little value to any single patient when his data gets aggregatated. A system not influenced by pharma or software industry would make it incredibly expensive or hard to collect aggregate data, while keeping individual records usuable The harsh reality is hospital administration and regulation tends to be skewed with doctors, it is the same with legislators who tend to be lawyers, or professional management tend to be sales than tech. None of these groups understand the nuances of tech always to manage or regulate them better, sometimes they are smart or trust their advisors and get it right, but it hit and miss. Data is money today , so industry is not interested in better safety of medical data either, preventing aggregate collection will loose a lot of value for med tech companies.

monkeydreams 6y ago
> this is a strawman argument. I'm reading this as a header declaration. You are arguing a range of items without actually touching on my point - that health data patterns require a link from encounter and observations back to a patient record. I think that you are arguing a number of these points with incomplete information (i.e. that you have little understanding of the pressures which result in the continued existence of Windows XP within the health ecosystem), and on other points you are completely missing the point (storing patient data on the cloud is a whole different argument). > Data is money today , so industry is not interested in better safety of medical data either, preventing aggregate collection will loose a lot of value for med tech companies. The data has relatively minimal value for the makers of patient record systems. The value of these systems are in the licensing and ancillary/secondary services.
- manquer 6y ago
  I agree my understanding is limited into your industry. I don't need to have an understanding, I am just a regular Joe who's data security your industry does not give a thought about and his data leaked constantly[1]. After so many leaks, I do not see an acknowledgement of systemic issues. I see no discourse on how the industry can step up and improve their security practices. I see no significant update to regulation in response to any of this. If your industry cannot move fast enough with the consumer tech industry then you should not be basing your tech stack on a OS like XP in the first place , XP always was going to have limited window of mainline support. Core banking is perfectly happy using COBOL and zOS for the last 50 years. [2] If you don't believe the architectural choices the industry makes and attitude towards tech has anything to do with the data security problems there is nothing I can say to convince you. [1] I am focusing on one thing only security not privacy or anything else, i.e. unintentionally sharing data. [2] it is not that fin tech is without its problems either, however in general fin tech has responded to security concerns.

monkeydreams 6y ago

> this is a strawman argument. I'm reading this as a header declaration. You are arguing a range of items without actually touching on my point - that health data patterns require a link from encounter and observations back to a patient record. I think that you are arguing a number of these points with incomplete information (i.e. that you have little understanding of the pressures which result in the continued existence of Windows XP within the health ecosystem), and on other points you are completely missing the point (storing patient data on the cloud is a whole different argument). > Data is money today , so industry is not interested in better safety of medical data either, preventing aggregate collection will loose a lot of value for med tech companies. The data has relatively minimal value for the makers of patient record systems. The value of these systems are in the licensing and ancillary/secondary services.

manquer 6y ago
I agree my understanding is limited into your industry. I don't need to have an understanding, I am just a regular Joe who's data security your industry does not give a thought about and his data leaked constantly[1]. After so many leaks, I do not see an acknowledgement of systemic issues. I see no discourse on how the industry can step up and improve their security practices. I see no significant update to regulation in response to any of this. If your industry cannot move fast enough with the consumer tech industry then you should not be basing your tech stack on a OS like XP in the first place , XP always was going to have limited window of mainline support. Core banking is perfectly happy using COBOL and zOS for the last 50 years. [2] If you don't believe the architectural choices the industry makes and attitude towards tech has anything to do with the data security problems there is nothing I can say to convince you. [1] I am focusing on one thing only security not privacy or anything else, i.e. unintentionally sharing data. [2] it is not that fin tech is without its problems either, however in general fin tech has responded to security concerns.