Group items tagged

IT security typically has been deemed one of those services best provided in-house. But the stigma attached to outsourcing security and Security as a Service -- namely that an outsider does not know your company well enough to protect it -- may be falling away, as businesses look for more ways to cut costs. Certainly, some heavy-hitter providers believe attitudes are changing. This month, McAfee Inc. announced its new SaaS Security Business Unit. Headed by former Hewlett-Packard Co. SaaS executive Marc Olesen, the unit will oversee all McAfee products delivered over the Internet, including security scanning services, Web and email security services and remote managed host-based security software and hardware. Meanwhile, last April, IBM launched some hosted and managed services that it says help midsized businesses better manage risk and improve the security of their IT systems, all while offering cost savings over traditional products. Indeed, much of IBM's security strategy during the next 24 months will focus on moving security technologies into the cloud and expanding its managed services offerings, said Jason Hilling, an enterprise services business line executive with IBM Internet Security Systems. That includes providing some hosted implementations of technologies that once were located only at the customer premises. "Because the economy is struggling, I think there will be enough excitement in the marketplace over the cost benefits of Security as a Service that we are going to see a much higher degree of willingness to look at it as a real viable option," Hilling said. Hilling contended that a midmarket company with between 500 and 700 employees can realize costs savings from 35% to upwards of 60% by doing security as a managed service. Savings diminish as the deployment gets larger and more complicated, and the costs of managed services escalate. Yet outsourcing security is not just about cost. The world is becoming very hostile, said Sadik Al-Abdulla,

Last week, President Barack Obama convened a health-care summit in Washington to identify programs that would improve quality and restrain burgeoning costs. He stated that all his policies would be based on rigorous scientific evidence of benefit. The flagship proposal presented by the president at this gathering was the national adoption of electronic medical records -- a computer-based system that would contain every patient's clinical history, laboratory results, and treatments. This, he said, would save some $80 billion a year, safeguard against medical errors, reduce malpractice lawsuits, and greatly facilitate both preventive care and ongoing therapy of the chronically ill. Following his announcement, we spoke with fellow physicians at the Harvard teaching hospitals, where electronic medical records have been in use for years. All of us were dumbfounded, wondering how such dramatic claims of cost-saving and quality improvement could be true. The basis for the president's proposal is a theoretical study published in 2005 by the RAND Corporation, funded by companies including Hewlett-Packard and Xerox that stand to financially benefit from such an electronic system. And, as the RAND policy analysts readily admit in their report, there was no compelling evidence at the time to support their theoretical claims. Moreover, in the four years since the report, considerable data have been obtained that undermine their claims. The RAND study and the Obama proposal it spawned appear to be an elegant exercise in wishful thinking. To be sure, there are real benefits from electronic medical records. Physicians and nurses can readily access all the information on their patients from a single site. Particularly helpful are alerts in the system that warn of potential dangers in the prescribing of a certain drug for a patient on other therapies that could result in toxicity. But do these benefits translate into $80 billion annually in cost-savings? The cost-savings from avoi

President-elect Barack Obama has promised to computerize all of America's medical records within five years. He made the pledge last week in a speech at George Mason University. "This will cut waste, eliminate red tape and reduce the need to repeat expensive medical tests," he said. "But it just won't save billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, it will save lives by reducing the deadly but preventable medical errors that pervade our health care system." But the road to digitized medical records will be a tough and expensive one, CNN Money reported. Today, only about 8% of the country's 5,000 hospitals and 17% of its 800,000 physicians use electronic medical records. There is also the issue of patient privacy. Numerous hospitals have faced security issues since moving to electronic medical records. The Industry Standard reported on a security breach at a Los Angeles hospital last month. And then there is the cost. Studies done by Harvard, RAND and the Commonwealth Fund peg the cost of the digitization plan between at least $75 billion to $100 billion, according to the CNN article. However, the health care industry spends $2 trillion dollars a year, so the $100 billion may be well worth the long-term savings.

Maryland is poised to jump ahead of the rest of the nation in health information technology on Tuesday when Gov. Martin O'Malley signs a bill intended to coax doctors into using electronic medical records. The computerized files are seen as the foundation of a national health information network that proponents say will improve care, advance medical knowledge and save the country tens of billions of dollars annually. But with the startup costs to individual doctors in the tens of thousands of dollars, many smaller practices have been slow to move from clipboard to computer screen. With today's bill signing, Maryland will become the first state requiring private insurance companies to offer doctors financial incentives to adopt the technology, state officials say. Doctors who do not bring an electronic medical records system on line by 2015 could face penalties. "This is where government and private health care providers can come together to really improve not only the quality of care but also, hopefully, create some costs savings as well," O'Malley said. "Health IT is the future of health care in our country, and we want Maryland to lead the way."

The inability to discard worthless items even though they appear to have no value is known as compulsive hoarding syndrome. Ben Rothke explains why it's a bad habit in the world of IT security. The inability to discard worthless items even though they appear to have no value is known as compulsive hoarding syndrome. If the eccentric Collyer brothers had a better understanding of destruction practices, they likely would not have been killed by the very documents and newspapers they obsessively collected. While most organizations don't hoard junk and newspapers like Homer and Langley Collyer did, they do need to keep information such as employee personnel records, financial statements, contracts and leases and more. Given the vast amount of paper and digital media that amasses over time, effective information destruction policies and practices are now a necessary part of doing business and will likely save organizations time, effort and heartache, legal costs as well as embarrassment and more. In December 2007, the Federal Trade Commission announced a $50,000 settlement with American Mortgage Company of Northbrook, Illinois, over charges the company violated the FTC's Disposal, Safeguards, and Privacy rules by failing to properly dispose of documents containing consumers' credit and personally identifiable information. In announcing the settlement, the FTC put all companies on notice that it is taking such failures seriously. A $50,000 settlement might seem low when measured against the potential for financial harm to individuals as a result of the company's negligence, but in addition to the negative PR for American Mortgage, the settlement includes an obligation to obtain an audit, every two years for the next 10 years, from a qualified, independent, third-party professional to ensure that its security program meets the standards of the order. Any similar failures by this company during the next decade will be met with more severe punishment. That, indeed, is a

Bring up the subject of digitizing medical records and you're likely to get a paradox of a discussion. Everyone thinks it will help save money and improve health care, and everyone has grave reservations. Get ready to hear more as a massive economic stimulus bill works its way through Congress, which includes IT health care spending measures. Although lawmakers are close to pulling the trigger. ensuring the privacy of patients' electronic health records (EHR) remains a top concern. "I very firmly believe that the Achilles heel of health IT is privacy," said Sen. Jim Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who chaired a hearing this morning examining the appropriate safeguards government should insist on before it doles out billions of dollars to help providers computerize patients' records. Champions of health IT argue that EHRs and interoperable systems to integrate data among providers would drive down healthcare costs while greatly reducing medical errors. Just 17 percent of physicians currently have even basic EHRs. The Center for Disease Control has estimated that as many as 98,000 preventable deaths occur in U.S. hospitals each year, many of which could presumably been avoided with more accessible patient data. "If 100,000 Americans were being killed by anything else, we'd be at war," Whitehouse said.

Consumers save their e-mail and documents on Google's data centers, put their photos on Flickr and store their social lives on Facebook. Now a host of companies including Amazon and Microsoft wants government agencies to similarly house data on their servers as a way to cut costs and boost efficiency. But federal officials say it's one thing to file away e-mailed jokes from friends, and another to store government data on public servers that could be vulnerable to security breaches. The push toward "cloud computing," so named because data and software is housed in remote data centers rather than on-site servers, is the latest consumer technology to migrate to the ranks of government. Companies such as Amazon and Salesforce, which do not typically sell services to the government, want a piece of the business. Google opened a Reston office last year to sell applications such as Google Docs to federal employees. Silicon Valley-based Salesforce, which has focused on selling to corporations, established a team dedicated to government contracting. Microsoft spent $2.3 billion in 2007 to build data centers for cloud computing, and IBM, Sun Microsystems and HP want to provide the government cloud.

The offshoring of business processes has become increasingly popular. Fueled by advancements in technology, the benefits of offshoring are primarily attributable to the savings from lower personnel costs at foreign locations. According to the Global Financial Services Offshoring Report 2007 by Deloitte & Touche U.SA LLP, over 75% of major financial institutions report offshoring a portion of their operations. Some economists estimate that up to one-third of total U.S. employment in services may ultimately be offshored (Steve Lohr, "At IBM, a Smarter Way to Outsource," The New York Times, July 5, 2007). Offshore entities often operate in developing countries such as India, China, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Vietnam. The offshoring of business processes generally takes two forms: outsourcing to an unaffiliated offshore entity (offshore outsourcing), or ownership and operation of an affiliated offshore entity (AOE). Many multinational companies have AOEs. For example, Accenture has more employees in India than in the United States; IBM is projected to have more than one-quarter of its workforce in India by 2010; and companies like General Electric, Eli Lilly, Google, and Microsoft are expanding their R&D centers in India and China (House Committee on Science and Technology, June 12, 2002). Offshoring and the Auditing Profession The potential benefits of offshoring have not been ignored by the accounting profession. In past years, several large public accounting firms began using AOEs to perform certain nonaudit procedures for their U.S.-based clients. For example, Ernst & Young uses AOE employees to prepare client tax returns (Vanessa Houlder, "E &Y Sends Compliance Work Offshore," Financial Times, July 11, 2007), and a number of accounting firms use AOEs to print documents for delivery to clients. The largest international public accounting firms have recendy begun testing the offshoring of certain auditing procedures on very large U.S. audit engagements to thei

The Government Accountability Office issued another scathing report saying that federal agencies still don't do enough to secure government IT assets. "Persistent weaknesses in information security policies and practices continue to threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical information and information systems used to support the operations, assets and personnel of most federal agencies," Gregory Wilshusen, GAO director of information security issues, wrote in a 66-page report issued Friday. "Recently reported incidents at federal agencies have placed sensitive data at risk, including the theft, loss, or improper disclosure of personally identifiable information of Americans, thereby exposing them to loss of privacy and identity theft." In a written response accompanying the report, federal CIO Vivek Kundra said OMB is committed to the vision of a secure federal government, and are taking steps to make that vision a reality. OMB, he said, has initiated a review of the language in the current reporting instructions to identify and clarify confusion in the annual reporting. OMB also is working with the CIO Council and the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to improve guidance to agencies. The GAO report also said that nearly all of the 24 major federal agencies last year had weaknesses in information security controls. "An underlying reason for these weaknesses is that agencies have not fully implemented their information security programs," Wilshusen said. "As a result, agencies have limited assurance that controls are in place and operating as intended to protect their information resources, thereby leaving them vulnerable to attack or compromise."

1. You get what you pay for. 2. Americans do not take information or security as seriously as they do their love for profit & cost savings. If one does not value what they are trying to protect accurately, the investment one is prepared to make will always be insufficient. Then there are hindsight and rationalization (a.k.a. politicians) - Karl The Government Accountability Office issued another scathing report saying that federal agencies still don't do enough to secure government IT assets. "Persistent weaknesses in information security policies and practices continue to threaten the confidentiality, integrity and availability of critical information and information systems used to support the operations, assets and personnel of most federal agencies," Gregory Wilshusen, GAO director of information security issues, wrote in a 66-page report issued Friday. "Recently reported incidents at federal agencies have placed sensitive data at risk, including the theft, loss, or improper disclosure of personally identifiable information of Americans, thereby exposing them to loss of privacy and identity theft." In a written response accompanying the report, federal CIO Vivek Kundra said OMB is committed to the vision of a secure federal government, and are taking steps to make that vision a reality. OMB, he said, has initiated a review of the language in the current reporting instructions to identify and clarify confusion in the annual reporting. OMB also is working with the CIO Council and the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency to improve guidance to agencies. The GAO report also said that nearly all of the 24 major federal agencies last year had weaknesses in information security controls. "An underlying reason for these weaknesses is that agencies have not fully implemented their information security programs," Wilshusen said. "As a result, agencies have limited assurance that controls are in place and operating as intended to protect their inf