500
Federal Cyber Experts Thought Microsoft’s Cloud Was “a Pile of Shit.” They Approved It Anyway. (www.propublica.org)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
  • “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.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

No I can’t cite something that doesn’t exist. I literally just said there isn’t one… so I am not sure what your point is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Legally, any organization that used this service would be opening themselves to further liability under HIPAA.

    What legal violation? Because the law says nothing about that.

    what the law does allow, is data storage with a BAA.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    What?!? The entire purpose of HIPAA is to put liability on misuse of data. At this point, I have no fucking clue what your point is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yes, but you talked about how cloud storage vs on prem is a violation.

    Put up or shut up.

    Also see my edit about a BAA

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I'm not op, and I've Read the actual law.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I'm also required to be compliant.

    But how can companies like google have products like

    https://cloud.google.com/security/compliance/hipaa

    if cloud storage is a violation?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    That's what he's saying, they're in violation. Your comment begs the question "is everything big companies do legal and compliant?"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Maybe you can't but the DoJ does it all the time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    And chevron deference is dead.

    So its up to judges to determine what the rules are.

    Say what you will about the clown courts the US has. But then don't claim that HIPAA matters at all then. Because its only worth the paper it's on sure. But then the entire conversation is moot.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent