Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

One of the more interesting panel discussions at the IDC Cloud Computing Forum on Feb 18th in San Francisco was about managing the complexities of security, privacy and compliance in the Cloud. The simple answer according to panelists Carolyn Lawson, CIO of California Public Utilities Commission, and Michael Mucha, CISO of Stanford Hospital and Clinics is "it ain't easy!" "Both of us, in government and in health, are on the front-lines," Lawson proclaimed. "Article 1 of the California Constitution guarantees an individual's right to privacy and if I violate that I've violated a public trust. That's a level of responsibility that most computer security people don't have to face. If I violate that trust I can end up in jail or hauled before the legislature," she said. "Of course, these days with the turmoil in the legislature, she joked, "the former may be preferable to the later." Stanford's Mucha said that his security infrastructure was built on a two-tiered approach using identity management and enterprise access control. Mucha said that the movement to computerize heath records nationwide was moving along in fits and starts, as shown by proposed systems likeMicrosoft (NSDQ: MSFT)'s Health Vault and Google (NSDQ: GOOG)'s Personal Health Record. "The key problem is who is going to pay for the computerized of health records. It's not as much of a problem at Stanford as it is at a lot of smaller hospitals, but it's still a huge problem." Mucha said that from his perspective security service providers in the cloud and elsewhere are dealing with a shrinking security parameter or fence, which is progressing from filing cabinets, to devices, to files, and finally to the individual, who under the latest Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules has certain rights, including rights to access and amend their health information and to obtain a record of when and why their Protected Health Information (PHI) record has bee

A health care industry coalition on Monday released a prescriptive security framework that organizations can use to safeguard patient records as they increasingly move online. The framework, released by the Health Information Trust Alliance (HITRUST) -- which represents health care providers, pharmacies, insurers, biotech firms and medical device manufacturers -- is based on well-known standards such as COBIT, NIST and ISO 270001. But this is the first benchmark developed specifically for protecting health data. "It's tailored to protecting health information right out of the gate," Michael Wilson, vice president and chief information security officer of McKesson, the largest U.S. pharmaceutical distributor, told SCMagazineUS.com on Monday. "It's just a different sort of data. It's still structured [like other verticals], but there's a lot more of it in health care." The framework was created to improve adoption rates with regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and increase patient confidence in the security of their information. It also arrives on the heels of the new $787 billion economic stimulus bill, about $20 billion of which is earmarked to encourage health care organizations to adopt electronic health records as a way to reduce the number of medical errors and save money. The stimulus bill, in itself, contains srict privacy and security regulations for patient information. The standards took about 18 months to devise and can be implemented by organizations of any size, according to HITRUST. "2009 will be a turning point for information security in the health care industry, when organizations will begin implementing the framework...and create a cascading effect that will impact and benefit the entire health care ecosystem," Daniel Nutkis, CEO of HITRUST, said in news release. Wilson said the framework also will enable companies such as McKesson to show their customers and business partners that they are taki

A group of U.S. companies, led by technology giants Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and eBay, is set to outline recommendations for new federal data-privacy legislation that could make life easier for consumers and lead to a standard federal breach-notification law. The recommendations, which were developed by a group of industry players called the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, are set to be released at an upcoming privacy conference six weeks from now, according to Peter Cullen, Microsoft's chief privacy officer. The companies have been working for the past three years to encourage the adoption of federal consumer data-privacy laws and to answer the question of what federal legislation should look like, Cullen said in an interview. Other forum members include Google, Oracle, Procter & Gamble and Eli Lilly. One idea is that laws should make it easier for consumers to understand what they're getting into when they share their personal data with Web sites, Cullen said. "The whole focus on consent really puts an unfair burden on the consumer," he said. "My mom doesn't know what an IP address is." The recommendations will cover rules around data use and the ability of consumers to correct inaccurate data. And they will cover data breach notification, which is now covered by a patchwork of state laws. Simplifying breach-notification laws by creating a single federal standard is important, Cullen said Wednesday while speaking at a discussion of privacy policy in San Francisco. "It's not that there is no privacy law. There's actually too much privacy law," he said. "If you think about data-breach notification laws just as an example, there are 38 state laws, many of them very different." "We need to think about much more of a framework approach." Congress has passed some laws covering consumer data privacy, such as the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but existing laws do not comprehensively cover consumer privacy in general.

A consumer group accused Google of seeking provisions in the economic stimulus package that would allow it to sell patient medical data to Google Health advertisers. Perhaps patients' biggest worry about electronic medical records is that their private health data will get into the wrong hands. To get a feel for some folks' anxiety, just take a look at this from a group called Patient Privacy Rights: "CHILLING NEWS ABOUT HEALTH PRIVACY: You Have None." (Or look at one of our many posts about health data breaches.) So it's probably not a surprise that Google, which last year launched Google Health, a personal online repository, was quick to refute a charge by a different consumer group, called Consumer Watchdog, of "a rumored [Google] lobbying effort aimed at allowing the sale of electronic medical records." The group further claimed that Google is "reportedly" pushing for items in the economic stimulus bill that would allow the company to "sell patient medical information" to advertisers. Google shot back, posting an item in its public policy blog calling the claims "100 percent false and unfounded." The company added: Google does not sell health data. In fact, one of our most steadfast privacy principles is that we don't sell our users' personal data, whether it's stored in Google Health, Gmail, or in any of our products. And from a policy perspective, we oppose the sale of medical information in the health care industry. Google's ear is likely fine tuned to this issue, considering some folks in the medical community have already pointed out the company is not a type required to follow a federal patient-privacy law called HIPAA.

Those who are superstitious may believe that bad things happen on Friday the 13th, but we will leave it to each individual and entity to formulate conclusions regarding the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (the HITECH Act), which Congress passed late on Friday, February 13, 2009, and President Obama officially signed into effect on February 17, 2009. The HITECH Act addresses various aspects relating to the use of health information technology (H.I.T.), including providing for federal funding by way of grants and incentive payments in order to promote H.I.T. implementation. This Alert focuses, however, on Subtitle D of the HITECH Act, which includes important, new and far-reaching provisions concerning the privacy and security of health information that will materially and directly affect more entities, businesses and individuals in more diverse ways than ever before. These changes are further elaborated upon below, but this Alert can only highlight certain prominent issues under the HITECH Act and is by no means a comprehensive review of this lengthy and complex Act. For questions and additional guidance on the HITECH Act, contact your Fox Rothschild attorney or the authors of this Alert. New Privacy and Security Requirements * Security Breach Notification Requirements: Security breach notification requirements under the HITECH Act go into effect 30 days after the date that interim final regulations are promulgated, which will be no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the HITECH Act (August 16, 2009). Covered entities, business associates and vendors who handle personal health records are required to abide by breach notification requirements. Violations of this requirement by vendors would be treated as an unfair and deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. If a breach affects more than 500 individuals of a particular state, notice also must be provided to prominent media outl

Data Privacy Trends: Randy Sabett, Information Security Attorney March 26, 2009 Activity at the State Level Points Toward a Federal Data Breach Notification Law Data privacy legislation -- the trend started in California and is being discussed heatedly in Massachusetts today. Data breach notification and privacy laws have now been enacted in 40 separate states, and government observers think we're close to seeing federal legislation proposed. In an exclusive interview, Randy Sabett, a noted privacy/information security attorney, discusses: Trends in state data privacy legislation; What these laws mean to businesses; The Obama Administration's approach to data privacy; Trends to keep an eye on throughout 2009. Randy V. Sabett, CISSP, is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, where he is a member of the Internet, Communications & Data Protection Practice. He counsels clients on information security, privacy, IT licensing, and patents, dealing with such issues as Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), digital and electronic signatures, federated identity, HIPAA, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Sarbanes-Oxley, state and federal information security and privacy laws, identity theft and security breaches. He served as a Commissioner for the Commission on Cyber Security for the 44th Presidency.

Proof that George Bush was actually protecting us by limiting access to government information!

At the National Archives and Records Administration's annual conference Thursday, one keynote speaker asked the crowd of several hundred how many of the archivists in attendance were sold on the use of social media. Only a smattering raised their hands. Clearly, it's a challenge for the government to figure out how to navigate complex archival and e-discovery regulations that require it to capture and store all sorts of new content in the age of social media, cloud computing, and seemingly endless storage. "The federal government is in a constantly evolving records environment," Adrienne Thomas, acting archivist of the United States, said in a luncheon speech to the conference. "These are exciting and challenging times." Obama administration ambitions toward cloud computing and more openness only make that issue more complicated. "Many of us in the federal records administrations have struggled with the implications of this new direction," Paul Wester, director of modern records programs at the National Archives, said in an interview. "We deeply believe in transparency and openness, but we are concerned about FOIA, HIPAA, the Privacy Act, personally identifiable information, and compliance with the Disability Act and Federal Records Act."

The federal GLBA, HIPAA, FACTA and its Red Flags and Disposal Rules, state data Breach Notification Laws and many other federal and state laws and industry regulations like PCI-DSS are intended to protect the privacy and security of consumer's personally identifiable and financial information entrusted to businesses and other organizations. Many suchidentity theft, id theft, government security, government privacy regulations aim to prevent identity theft and privacy violations. While some businesses have been negligent in securing information, other businesses have been victimized by black hat hackers or "crackers" who operate ahead of the cybersecurity technology curve. Cybersecurity is an ongoing challenge for businesses and for government as discussed in the President's Cyberspace Policy Review. In the four-year period ending in 2008, 23% of all data breaches reported were attributed to hackers. For those data breaches involving more than one million profiles, hacking was identified as the cause in 66% of the breaches according to a recent research report on data breach risk factors.

Point by Marcus Ranum THERE'S AN OLD SAYING, "Sometimes things have to get a lot worse before they can get better." If that's true, then breach notification laws offer the chance of eventual improvements in security, years hence. For now? They're a huge distraction that has more to do with butt-covering and paperwork than improving systems security. Somehow, the security world has managed to ignore the effect voluntary (?) notification and notification laws have had in other fields-namely, none.We regularly get bank disclosure statements, stock plan announcements, HIPAA disclosures, etc.-and they all go immediately in the wastebasket, unread.When I got my personal information breach notification from the Department of Veterans Affairs, it went in the trash too. Counterpoint by Bruce Schneier THERE ARE THREE REASONS for breach notification laws. One, it's common politeness that when you lose something of someone else's, you tell him. The prevailing corporate attitude before the law-"They won't notice, and if they do notice they won't know it's us, so we are better off keeping quiet about the whole thing"-is just wrong. Two, it provides statistics to security researchers as to how pervasive the problem really is. And three, it forces companies to improve their security. That last point needs a bit of explanation. The problem with companies protecting your data is that it isn't in their financial best interest to do so. That is, the companies are responsible for protecting your data, but bear none of the costs if your data is compromised. You suffer the harm, but you have no control-or even knowledge- of the company's security practices. The idea behind such laws, and how they were sold to legislators, is that they would increase the cost-both in bad publicity and the actual notification-of security breaches, motivating companies to spend more to prevent them. In economic terms, the law reduces the externalities and forces companies to deal with the true costs of

"It has been a bad past couple of months for healthcare information security. In October and November, multiple healthcare organizations announced patient data losses that made headlines in their communities, and national news in a few of the most egregious instances in which breaches involved hundreds of thousands of records."

"Fomer UCLA Healthcare System researcher Huping Zhou has pleaded guilty to violating parts of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and could be one of the first people in the country convicted under the law, federal authorities announced Friday. After learning he was to be let go, the 48-year-old is alleged to have accessed the UCLA patient records system 323 times during the three-week period, mostly to check out the files of celebrities, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The names of the targeted stars have not been revealed. Federal authorities say Zhou admitted to accessing the records -- cruising files that were not necessary to view as part of his job -- under a plea agreement. He'll face a judge for sentencing March 22. It's not clear what kind of punishment the U.S. Attorney's Office will recommend in exchange for his cooperation."

"A Little Rock doctor was reprimanded and fined $500 by the Arkansas State Medical Board on Thursday for illegally accessing Anne Pressly's medical records as she lay unconscious in intensive care at St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center before she died. Dr. Jay Douglas Holland, who has a family-practice clinic in the Hillcrest neighborhood, was also ordered to pay $265 to cover the cost of the board's investigation into the matter. Pressly, 26, was a news anchor for KATV-TV, Channel 7, when she was found raped and badly beaten in her Hillcrest home the morning of Oct. 20, 2008. She spent five days in intensive care before succumbing to her injuries."

"Doctor rapped over peeking at TV anchor's files Little Rock, Ark., doctor Jay Douglas Holland was reprimanded and fined $500 by the Arkansas State Medical Board for illegally accessing Anne Pressly's medical records as she lay unconscious in the intensive-care unit at St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center before she died."

It's often the security issue that dogs Google, Microsoft and other purveyors of personal health records (PHR): How will so much personal medical data be kept safe? A tangential question for Google, however -- one that has dogged the search giant since its Google Health offering was first made available in May 2008 -- is whether Google's search-based advertising platform creates a conflict with storing personal health data. Speaking at the Mastermind Session at Everything Channel's Healthcare Summit in San Diego in November,Google Vice President of Research and Special Initiatives Alfred Spector told health care CIOs, solution providers and other attendees that Google intended Google Health as an extension of the Google brand, and it was and would continue to be entirely separate from Google's main advertising platform. Watchdog organizations have taken Google to task over that claim, however, with one, Consumer Watchdog, even accusing Google of trying to lobby Congress to allow it to sell medical records by loosening regulatory language in the stimulus bill. "The medical technology portion of the economic stimulus bill does not sufficiently protect patient privacy, and recent amendments have made this situation worse," wrote Jerry Flanagan of Consumer Watchdog in a Jan. 27 open letter to Congress. "Medical privacy must be strengthened before the measure's final passage, rather than allowing corporate interests to take advantage of the larger bill's urgency." Flanagan in the letter states that, "Google is said to be lobbying hard ... to weaken the ban currently in the draft measure on the sale of our private medical records." While Consumer Watchdog did not cite specific evidence of Google pushing for softer restrictions, Google responded to the group's claims on its Public Policy Blog last week. "The claim -- based on no evidence whatsoever -- is 100 percent false and unfounded," wrote Pablo Chavez, Google's Senior Policy Counsel. "Google does not sell health

Customers of CVS' pharmacy will be able to import their prescription records into a Google Health account as a result of an expanded deal between the two companies. The deal was announced Monday. An earlier deal already allowed workers whose company uses CVS Caremark to handle drug benefits to use Google Health to store their drug records. The new deal expands this to customers of CVS' network of retail pharmacies. "We now offer all of our consumers the ability to download their prescription and medication history into their Google Health Personal Health Record, whether they are CVS/pharmacy customers, CVS Caremark plan participants or visitors to our MinuteClinic locations," said CVS Caremark Executive Vice President Helena Foulkes in a statement. "By enabling patients to download their prescription information directly into their personal health record, we are helping to close the gap in today's fragmented health care system and provide a full view of a patient's health." To use the tool, the companies said, consumers need to sign up for the prescription management feature on CVS.com as well as be authenticated. With the latest deal, Google said it now believes more than 100 million Americans will have the option of viewing their drug history within Google Health. Microsoft, which is also trying to sign consumers up for its HealthVault service, announced a deal with New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Sunday which will allow patients of that hospital system to export their records to a HealthVault account.

Dr. Jay Holland of Little Rock and two former employees of St. Vincent Infirmary Medical Center pleaded guilty Monday to misdemeanor violations of the federal medical records privacy law, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI in Little Rock announced. Holland, Sarah Elizabeth Miller of England and Candida Griffin of Little Rock admitted accessing "without any legitimate purpose" the medical records of Anne Pressly, the KATV-TV, Channel 7, reporter who was fatally attacked in her home in October. For the violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, each faces up to one year in prison, a fine of up to $50,000, or both. Sentencing has not been scheduled.

The statement did not indicate whether the information was paper-based or downloaded electronic information, and hospital officials were not immediately available for comment. The information likely was paper-based because "it appears the patients impacted by the incident were limited to individuals born between 1988 and 1992," according to the statement.