4 ms·

I trust Google more than I do "PA Consulting". Which begs the question, how did we get here? Who in their right mind sends out 27 DVDs with probably unencrypted

I trust Google more than I do "PA Consulting". Which begs the question, how did we get here? Who in their right mind sends out 27 DVDs with probably unencrypted, highly sensitive medical data? Even if the recipient is trustworthy, the transport isn't. This data needs to be on a locked away government server that answers queries by 3rd party by throwing away half of the data and randomizing the remainder.

fixermark 13y ago
Basically. An alternative headline for this story could be "Contractor moves sensitive data from insecure, non-audited medium to secure, audited medium."
- skrebbel 13y ago
  That would be "Contractor moves sensitive data from insecure, non-audited medium to secure, audited medium monitored by a foreign spy agency"
  - fixermark 13y ago
    Correct. I disregarded the nationality issue in assuming that GCHQ having "NHS, please pass me your data because terrorists" access to the health records is equivalent to the NSA having "[GAG ORDER] Google, a secret court has ordered you..." access to the health records, given how closely those agencies seem to be working together based on the Snowden disclosures. Others may place differing weights and values on their cloak-and-dagger outfit of choice. ;)
danielweber 13y ago
Sending things in the post may be the acceptable method of sending sensitive data. I'm guessing that the UK prosecutes people who mess with the post the same way that the US prosecutes people who mess with the mail. EDIT I'm not sure what I'm talking about. Was the complaint about "27 DVDs" just the amount of data or the method?
- andygates 13y ago
  It seems to be about the _assumption_ that they were unencrypted. We mail out encrypted DVDs semi-regularly. Works fine.
Pxtl 13y ago
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a law stating that those DVDs be encrypted... I mean, the key might be in a text file on the DVD, but there are plenty of regs surrounding the transportation of patient data.
- fixermark 13y ago
  That's true; they may be secured in that fashion (does anybody know what NHS policy is?) I was thinking "secure" in the sense of "Physically inside a datacenter with privileged access" as opposed to "Physically on 27 DVDs that are... Hm.... Where are those DVDs... Hey Bob, did you have the DVDs last? Shoot, I know I put those DVDs around here somewhere..."
  - dangerlibrary 13y ago
    Having worked with sensitive data on physical media - you couldn't be more mistaken about how carefully it is monitored and handled.
dangerlibrary 13y ago
I've worked with anonymized patient data in the U.S. at a small consulting firm nobody's ever heard of. We received encrypted physical media via USPS and registered mail. It may seem byzantine, but we also worked exclusively on air-gapped servers. Best practice in data security is pretty straightforward - you don't connect data to the internet if a single breach is catastrophic. We talk about things like the Target hack as catastrophic breaches, but they aren't. You can change your password or cancel your credit card. You can't change your medical history - once public, it is always public.

fixermark 13y ago

Basically. An alternative headline for this story could be "Contractor moves sensitive data from insecure, non-audited medium to secure, audited medium."

skrebbel 13y ago
That would be "Contractor moves sensitive data from insecure, non-audited medium to secure, audited medium monitored by a foreign spy agency"
- fixermark 13y ago
  Correct. I disregarded the nationality issue in assuming that GCHQ having "NHS, please pass me your data because terrorists" access to the health records is equivalent to the NSA having "[GAG ORDER] Google, a secret court has ordered you..." access to the health records, given how closely those agencies seem to be working together based on the Snowden disclosures. Others may place differing weights and values on their cloak-and-dagger outfit of choice. ;)

danielweber 13y ago

Sending things in the post may be the acceptable method of sending sensitive data. I'm guessing that the UK prosecutes people who mess with the post the same way that the US prosecutes people who mess with the mail. EDIT I'm not sure what I'm talking about. Was the complaint about "27 DVDs" just the amount of data or the method?

andygates 13y ago
It seems to be about the _assumption_ that they were unencrypted. We mail out encrypted DVDs semi-regularly. Works fine.

Pxtl 13y ago

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a law stating that those DVDs be encrypted... I mean, the key might be in a text file on the DVD, but there are plenty of regs surrounding the transportation of patient data.

fixermark 13y ago
That's true; they may be secured in that fashion (does anybody know what NHS policy is?) I was thinking "secure" in the sense of "Physically inside a datacenter with privileged access" as opposed to "Physically on 27 DVDs that are... Hm.... Where are those DVDs... Hey Bob, did you have the DVDs last? Shoot, I know I put those DVDs around here somewhere..."
- dangerlibrary 13y ago
  Having worked with sensitive data on physical media - you couldn't be more mistaken about how carefully it is monitored and handled.

dangerlibrary 13y ago

I've worked with anonymized patient data in the U.S. at a small consulting firm nobody's ever heard of. We received encrypted physical media via USPS and registered mail. It may seem byzantine, but we also worked exclusively on air-gapped servers. Best practice in data security is pretty straightforward - you don't connect data to the internet if a single breach is catastrophic. We talk about things like the Target hack as catastrophic breaches, but they aren't. You can change your password or cancel your credit card. You can't change your medical history - once public, it is always public.