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 (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