4 ms·
> They also encrypt user data in a way that they can't access it without the user's password I love how low our standards for government sites have gotten wher
by hanniabu 5y ago
> They also encrypt user data in a way that they can't access it without the user's password
I love how low our standards for government sites have gotten where this is seen as a plus and not something that's expected
- ethbr0 5y agoIsn't the US corporate standard even lower? Outside of maybe Google, Facebook, or HIPAA-covered entities. Corporate customer databases I've seen have rarely even been need-to-know access limited, much less actually encrypted to internal users.
- kube-system 5y agoI don't even think a HIPAA-covered entity could hold their data to the standard of zero-knowledge encryption... since, you know, they have to be able to use patient data.
- chordalkeyboard 5y agoin theory they could but I doubt most patients want to have to remotely authorize their provider any time someone wants to access their record.
- couchand 5y agoThey could authorize an agent to authorize provider usage. The agent could apply provider-specific policies, and potentially monitor record requests to try to identify fraud, waste, or abuse, and so forth. The patient regularly reviews a report of actions taken by the agent to adjust configuration or revoke authorization. Could be an interesting approach!
- ethbr0 5y agoAll of the access audit information exists, afaik, albeit in non-standardized form. Because the law distinguishes between wilful and inadvertent releases, and assesses penalties on the basis of count and type, covered entities darn well better be able to produce an audit trail when asked.
- kube-system 5y agoIt also needs to be a system that is workable when you scrape an unconscious person off the street with no next-of-kin available. It's not possible to have the patient or their agent hold the sole key for data that is created before the patient/agent is first available. Really, the best you can do in that situation is exactly what HIPAA requires.
- couchand 5y agoGood point, implied consent does make such a system unworkable.
- manquer 5y agoAgent should not be individual it should be an third party service or organization( could even by governmental) which shouldn't have uptime concerns. The policy setup would be complex to do without expert assistance anyway.
- kube-system 5y agoMaybe so, but that's a different thing than the zero-knowledge encryption that this branch of the comment thread was originally about.
- manquer 5y agoAgent only handles the policy and access, they don't have access to the data itself It is still zero knowledge ?
- kube-system 5y agoIn a healthcare context, the patient often may not physically be able to.
- Spooky23 5y agoAbsolutely. People do what they need, no more. It’s getting better as people shift to cloud and inherit better controls, or implement better controls for cost avoidance reasons.
- dzhiurgis 5y agoMy country lets me use Google's SSO (arguably should probably also support Apple and have better 2FA options) - why wouldn't yours? If someone wants to use facial recognition - why not? If someone wants to use insecure username/password and risk a compromise - let them do it. FWIW big tech has probably 99.99% of people's faces, I'd guess at least 90% is tied to an identity.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jesterpm 5y agoI'd say the bigger issue isn't being allowed to use a third-party SSO, the issue is having the option to not use the third-party's SSO. We see enough horror stories about the impact of being locked out of a Google account.