A federal program created to protect the government against cyber threats authorized a sprawling Microsoft cloud product, despite the company’s inability to fully explain how it protects sensitive data.
  • “Cloud First”: To move federal agencies to the cloud, the government created a program known as FedRAMP, whose job was to ensure the security of new technology.
  • Security Breakdown: ProPublica found that FedRAMP authorized a Microsoft product called GCC High to handle sensitive government data, despite years of concerns about its security.
  • Potential Conflict of Interest: The government relies, in part, on third-party firms to vet cloud technology, but those firms are hired and paid by the company being assessed.
    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      2·
      2 days ago

      The answer to your question is in the article you posted… did you even read it?

      Have a great day, I’m done talking in circles.

        • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          1·
          2 days ago

          Believe it or not I pay attention to usernames. I was talking about the link you just posted that mentions the liability assumed by the signers of the BAA.

          Maybe read it again? My job requires me to be HIPAA and FERPA certified, I am confident in my interpretation of the situation.

              • wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                1·
                2 days ago

                Violation of what specifically?

                Because HIPAA does not say you cant store data with third parties. That would be every cloud EMR out there.

                That’s my point though. Is HIPAA says nothing technical about who can store data, just who’s responsible for it getting out.

                • Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                  1·
                  21 hours ago

                  Yes we get your point, you dont get the point that it leaves them liable to regulators defining it and finding themselves out of compliance with the yet to be defined rules

                  • wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                    1·
                    20 hours ago

                    There’s no legal definition of “yet to be defined” rules. That’s not how the US legal system works. You cant define rules after the fact and call someone guilt/in violation of rules that don’t exist.