Technology

82745 readers

3076 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

334

Federal Cyber Experts Thought Microsoft’s Cloud Was “a Pile of Shit.” They Approved It Anyway. (www.propublica.org)

submitted 8 hours ago by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

35 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

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours 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.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

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.zone 1 points 4 hours 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?

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 16 minutes ago

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

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago

Seriously, stop being a troll. I’m done with this conversation. Not one time have I used the word violation.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 4 hours ago

Fun fact, the law actually does not lay out a single technical "must do".

But rather establish liabilities and defines miss use. Which is NOT the same as proper use.