Is Win2k + SP3 HIPAA Compliant? 489
Chris asks: "Our company deals with medical records in a peripheral sort of way (as they pertain to student loans), and due to new laws we are required to be HIPAA
compliant by April. After reading the discussion on here about the new EULA for Win2k SP3, I had a disturbing thought. As far as I can tell, if you use Windows 2000 then you're going to be out of compliance whatever you do. If you install the patch, then theoretically Microsoft could access those medical records (possibly by accident) without 'due cause or need' in the process of updating your machine. If you don't patch your system then you'll fail the security requirements of the law." If Win2k with SP3 is not HIPAA compliant (and I stress the if because no one has made a statement either way, yet) what can non-compliant Medical IT departments do?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a waste of time (Score:3, Informative)
Additional thouughts:
Use a firewall to block all traffic into and out of your network, and make the machiens inside use proxy servers (for http) and relays (for smtp) to access the internet. In other words, disallow all traffic that is not explicitly permitted. Log what goes through the proxies and relays, and log attempts at initiation of direct outgoing traffic.
Re:What a waste of time (Score:2, Interesting)
By placing isulating the servers from the rest of the network, we are able to control the port issues both ways. So ODBC and Remote Job Submits can be sent. The app is all green screen based.
Having the second firewall also prevents the servers "getting out" on the internet, becuase we removed the defualt route from the firewalls, so they do not know where the gateway to the internet is.
Are you sick? (Score:3, Funny)
How many hurls do you need?
We assessed the "hurl vs hurdle" question a long time ago and decided overwhelmingly in favor of hurdles...
Re:What a waste of time (Score:3, Informative)
Although MS engineers are not really well-known for implementing clever and working solution, I fear that they might have come up with a similar or even advanced technique of establishing a "stealth" connection.
A corporate firewall/packet filter with some sort of IDS enabled and all MS IPs blocked _might_ work if used in conjunction with an application firewall on each individual machine. On the other hand it might trade in too much flexibility for security. If the individual machine depends on http availability your pretty much lost. You can piggyback/tunnel basically anything through that. Disabling IE and using Netscape might put a hold to that.
But there ain't no verification of that unless someone can produce the w2k sources... And if someone does MS will have a patch ready and automatically deployed in RECORD time...
Re:What a waste of time (Score:4, Interesting)
Problem is EULA not SP (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not the service pack or the auto-downloader, which can be disabled. The problem is with the EULA itself, where Microsoft reserves for itself the right to access your system at any time. Installing the service pack off-line still requires acceptance of the EULA.
sPh
Re:Problem is EULA not SP (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Problem is EULA not SP (Score:5, Interesting)
At our company, we have NDA agreements like you've never seen before. We host legal documents for Law firms that are engaged in battle.
No one. And I mean, NO ONE (other than the law firm), is allowed to see the documents that we host.
The EULA that Microsoft has attached is in absolutely direct violation of our agreements with our clients.
Ergo, we haven't installed SP3 and doubt that we will.
Re:Problem is EULA not SP (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Problem is EULA not SP (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Problem is EULA not SP (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Problem is EULA not SP (Score:3, Insightful)
be warned, this is not a universal truth
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Problem is EULA not SP (Score:3, Insightful)
* The OS Product or OS Components contain components that enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically downloaded to your computer.
Re:Problem is EULA not SP (Score:2)
Let's turn the tables on them this time.
Re:What a waste of time (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore, disable auto-updating and do it manually and the problem is solved, moot, and done.
This is not a technical issue, disabling Auto-Update is trivial. This is a legal issue, the real problem is by agreeing to the EULA they are giving a third party, who has no due cause, access to thier system. Whether or not Microsoft ever actually accesses thier system is not the point, the point is they have given consent and Microsoft could in theory demand access at anytime, say for example to check for unlicensed copies of software. I suggest you get a lawyer who can sort this out for you, it is also possible, however unlikely, a good lawyer could negotiate a different EULA with Microsoft.
A Technical Forum??? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that you have a lot to learn about Slashdot. While most of the stories on here are technical in nature or have something to do with technology a large percentage of them have to do with the legal and political issues surrounding something technical.
Think about all the stories on copy protection for CD's. Yes, it has to do with a technical issue, but the discussions are certainly not technical. I've seen no code posted no how to defeat the copy protection. 99% of the posts are opinions about whether it is right for the producers to restrict use of purchased CD's in the way they want to, and the other 1% are First Post!
Why don't you just come out and say it? You are a Microsoft appologist that wants to ignore the issue with their EULA by making fun of the issue and calling it a waste of time. You say it's an invalid clause, but you don't indicate that you are a lawyer (and even if you were I doubt you'd be offering official legal advise). So you want us to just ignore the issue and "agree" to the EULA?
What happens if the EULA is allowed to stand and then Microsoft actually builds in more of this access that you granted them? What happens when it eventually gets installed on all Windows systems and then the crackers find out how to manipulate it and steal information off your computer? Then it wouldn't be Microsoft accessing the sensitive information, as I doubt they actually would do something like that, but because of the EULA they provide additional access methods for others.
There are plenty of valid discussion items surrounding this issue. Ignoring them is not going to make them go away, and they definately fall right smack into the favorite topic on Slashdot -- Microsoft bashing.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
The *FURTHER* legal requirements (Score:3, Informative)
From the mouth of Microsoft:
Replacement, Modification and Upgrade of the Software: Microsoft reserves the right to replace, modify or upgrade the SOFTWARE at any time by offering you a replacement or modified version of the SOFTWARE or such upgrade and to charge for such replacement, modification or upgrade. Any such replacement or modified software code or upgrade to the SOFTWARE offered to you by Microsoft shall be considered part of the SOFTWARE and subject to the terms of this EULA (unless this EULA is superceded by a further EULA accompanying such replacement or modified version of or upgrade to the SOFTWARE). In the event that Microsoft offers a replacement or modified version of or any upgrade to the SOFTWARE, (a) your continued use of the SOFTWARE is conditioned on your acceptance of such replacement or modified version of or upgrade to the SOFTWARE and any accompanying superceding EULA and (b) in the case of the replacement or modified SOFTWARE, your use of all prior versions of the SOFTWARE is terminated.
How will a firewall help... (Score:4, Insightful)
(Unless, of course, you want to cut off MS's websites from your browsers as well.)
Note that disabling auto-updating is a technical solution that assumes that MS won't ignore that setting for any updates that it consideres to be "really critical", either to your security, or to MS's business needs.
Re:How will a firewall help... (Score:2)
As other's have stated the technical part of this is a non-issue. The only question is the legal one. IANAL, but if you are HIPPA compliant you can't legally agree to Microsoft's EULA. Since I seriously doubt that MS is going to sue you for breach when you don't give them unfetered access I think that is a non-issue as well.
Re:How will a firewall help... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Firewall. FIREWALL.
This does not address my point that permitted protocols may be used to do the job.
2. Auto-update uses a service called "BITTS". Disable that. Auto-update offers a way to disable it. IF you dont trust it, shut it off and hitch the box to a packet sniffer. Prove to us and the world that its not actually off. You'd be a hero. But of course that's not going to happen.
I wasn't suggesting that MS was likely to do this. Rather, that they'd be ALLOWED to do this, because you gave them permission when you clicked-through the EULA
3. On a LAN of any size, use SUS from MS to distribute your patches[...]
Yes but you're missing the point. Even if you do that, you've already given MS permission to update through any backdoor mechanism they like.
Re:What a waste of time (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, and even if I was this would not be legal advice.
Re:What a waste of time (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft has the right to ignore all settings for auto-updating whenever they want.
Of course they can (and will) bundle the DRM-stuff with the next service packs anyway, so sooner or later they will get DRM into all Windows machines.
Re:What a waste of time (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, but they are preventing users of pirated activation codes and Warez copies of XP from accessing the Windows Update site aren't they? Wouldn't that also preclude gaining access to the DRM "upgrade"?
All of a sudden that Windows XP .ISO and keygen I spotted on P2P seems a lot more appealing... ;)
Re:Redundant. (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, the wording is so vague Microsoft could associate this permission with any product or mechanism they choose, given the pervasiveness of 'internet-based services' such as IE.
With reference to your earlier posts, I'm obliged to point out that these are far from consistent in the argument that they are advancing.
In order, we have:
1) The suggestion that any machine connected to the net contravenes the HIPAA and that therefore the whole debate is moot. Presumably because this is obviously an impractical limitation, no further mention is made of it.
2) The suggestion of a technical fix to the auto-update mechanism to prevent it from functioning. Several responses then point out that the problem lies with the license, not any specific mechanism.
3) Several posts quoting the portion of the EULA concerning opt-in auto-updates, omitting the general update permission clause. This is in an effort to prove that auto-update requires explicit permission.
4) After apparently retreating from (3), a new proposition is advanced that auto-update, while admittedly not being under explicit control of the user, applies only to mechanisms consciously 'utilized'. Presumably the implication is that the user will always be aware of such use and therefore should not be surprised by an auto-update.
5) A synthesis of (2) and (4) is then proposed where by 'firewalling the box' the mechanisms in (4) will be used and therefore the general auto-update clause does not apply. This is then immediately undermined by the admission that firewalling does not prevent mechanisms from accessing the internet, and so "[a]ny of [sic] MS's software that uses the Internet can check itself and update itself.". This doesn't prevent the same argument being forwarded again later, this time with the recommendation to use SUS to distribute patches as a workaround.
6) Yet another new angle is introduced, this time that the EULA itself can be disregarded because any 'illegal or unreasonable' clause will be found invalid when legally tested. It is not clear how this relates to previous points made.
It seems from this summary that you are content to chop and change your argument as you go along, shifting ground from one proposition to the other where necessary, only to restate earlier points in other places. It might be better for all concerned if you drew together whichever parts of the statements above now constitute your position and posted it once for further discussion.
Why do you fail to acknowledge the real problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is with the EULA.
The problem is with the EULA.
They have to be compliant with a law that says their system is not accessible to third parties.
The EULA allows a third party access to the system.
This is the issue the user has. Why oh why can't you comprehend this?
Furthermore, Slashdot is not purely a "technical forum".
Furthermore, disable auto-updating and do it manually and the problem is solved, moot, and done.
Waiting for clear definition (Score:5, Informative)
This is one of those standards that has yet to be clearly defined.
Re:Waiting for clear definition (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Waiting for clear definition (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the whole "trustworthy computing" thing is so much a standard waiting to be clarified as much as it is a purpose which is in direct opposition to the concept of well understood standards.
Micro$oft intends to remove you from concern over the security model of your computer, tracing paths of trust to a few "trusted authorities". HIPAA, and indeed any responsible security policy, requires you to know and be in control of what happens to your computers. The Win2ksp3 EULA makes that impossible, as does Microsoft's entire vision for "trustworthy computing".
Easy sollution really... (Score:4, Informative)
In stead you have a server running SUS, aka Software Update Services [microsoft.com]. It solves the problem of Microsoft accessing your workstations as you deploy the fixes from a central server of your choosing. This is what Microsoft recommends us to use, I spoke a few weeks ago with the Product Manager for the Finnish division and he recommended this.
Re:Easy sollution really... (Score:5, Informative)
Q. Does SUS support Service Packs?
A. No, it is not possible to use SUS to deploy Service Packs.
Re:Easy sollution really... (Score:2)
This way you rule out any weird things happening that a hotfix might have caused. And besides, we are talking about hotfixes here. That's what 'Automatic Update' was designed to install, granted it can be used to apply service packs as well.
Re:Easy sollution really... (Score:4, Informative)
A. No, it is not possible to use SUS to deploy Service Packs.
Yes, but that's not the point of SUS, if you wish to deploy a service pack to a windows 2000 domain, you push it out via an Active Directory published package.
On a side note, I have realized a lot of people here don't realize the amount of control an adimistrator has with Active Directory. I suggest some of you read up on that.
Re:Easy solution really... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, but that's not the point of SUS, if you wish to deploy a service pack to a windows 2000 domain, you push it out via an Active Directory published package.
Yeah, you're supposed to use AD to install all the great hotfix MSI's that Microsoft provides.
What? You mean they don't actually provide .msi format hotfixes? So, essentially, if I want to actually USE the feature the way they're advertising it, I need to repackage the hotfix or manually create a .zap [microsoft.com] file to make it work?
I guess there's no real rush. I mean, hey, how much can security possibly matter?
HIPAA Compliance (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, would you really want to take legal advice from a group of people who are known to mistake duct tape and baling wire for building materials?
Re:HIPAA Compliance (Score:2, Redundant)
Normally I would agree wholeheartedly with this statement. However, I have already seen a comment from a person who is going through the same thing and had a bang-up answer that made since. I have seen a lot of crap, but I don't think that the author is intending on using Slashdot in court ("Your honor, but L0053c4nn0n on Slashdot said it was right!") but simply not wanting to duplicate steps that others have already taken.
Re:HIPAA Compliance (Score:5, Insightful)
However, when seeking assistance from a lawyer (or any similar professional) it is best to have a basic understanding of what is going on, and what you need, before you set up a meeting. You will get a lot more accomplished that way.
Similarily, lawyers aren't born knowing everything (even though they try to foster that impression!). If your hospital's legal dept. primarily handles malpractice and billing cases, and you bring an intellectual property / EULA problem to them, they are also going to have to do some research to get up to speed. Being able to provide background helps here too.
sPh
What?! (Score:2)
Re:HIPAA Compliance (Score:4, Insightful)
"How to defang Win2k SP3's auto updating" (Score:4, Informative)
basicaly it teaches how to deactivate this backdoor M$ is installing in every win2k box.
now, the original submiter could really consider an alternative.
if U don't like free (as in freedom) open source tools, why not a Solaris box with Oracle to keep the data ? Or an AIX with DB2 ? or PostgreSQL ?
does you REALLY need win2k ????
Re:"How to defang Win2k SP3's auto updating" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"How to defang Win2k SP3's auto updating" (Score:2)
Why did SQL6/7/2000 ever get a foot hold? Look at the prices.
Yes, indeed medical should have the money to buy this stuff, but a lot of places are on the verge and can't spent this kind of money.
#2 - Install your sp3 and disable the auto-update. Sometimes I think slashdot puts this kind of crap up as one large troll. Not that microsoft is a saint, or even a normal sinner, but 2 wrongs don't make a right. The stance that you leave out a little information to try to make a point is bias. Every day slashdot slips down the slippery slope and it is starting to get ugly.
Re:"How to defang Win2k SP3's auto updating" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:"How to defang Win2k SP3's auto updating" (Score:2)
Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but that only deactivates the "well known" update service. Once you have SP3 on your machine, you have agreed to the EULA, allowing Microsoft to throw anything, anyway, anytime onto YOUR machine. Once they have the right (that you just agreed to to get the bugfixes), the barn door is open to any way Microsoft can get files onto your machine. Known to you, or not.
Submit a request to HIPAA not /. (Score:5, Insightful)
Be certain your lawyer understands he should ask for an exemption until this is clarified. (This will prevent them from sitting on it for two years and then you getting in trouble later.)
Later when HIPAA says it is okay to do "X" and you find MS (or anyone with such an EULA) has absorbed records, your company is in the clear. Do not presume you can later claim a technical solution that was "just as good as..."
This is an issue for your lawyer(s) to resolve, not Slashdot.
Re:Submit a request to HIPAA not /. (Score:2, Insightful)
Say it with me now: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Re:Submit a request to HIPAA not /. (Score:2)
You are correct (but you knew that). In my haste I typed HIPAA instead of HCFA. In thinking it over however, I seem to recall the GAO got involved some time back and that caused responsibility for enforcement to the States. If so, getting an answer especially if his company is multi-state will be real fun. (Unless they have Federal oversight somewhere)
Here's a couple of Linux Medical Sites (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.euspirit.org/ [euspirit.org]
Re:Here's a couple of Linux Medical Sites (Score:3, Informative)
Read the EULA. (Score:3, Insightful)
Contracts aren't allowed to violate the law. A contract to kill someone isn't legally binding, because murder is illegal. If Microsoft wants to claim they get remote access at will to your boxes, then you get to say "neener neener neener, no you don't, under HIPAA I'm forbidden from allowing you that access".
The proper Microsoft response? "Oh. Well, we're sorry about that. All the other clauses of the EULA stick, though."
So go ahead, get Windows SP3, and then figure out some way to disable remote-root.
Oh, and one more thing--
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, TALK TO LEGAL COUNSEL. WHY THE FSCK ARE YOU ASKING LEGAL QUESTIONS ON `ASK SLASHDOT', ANYWAY?! DO WE LOOK LIKE HARVARD LAW GRADS?!
(Sorry, just had to get that knee-jerk reaction out of my system.)
Active v passive (Score:2)
Problem is, most companies don't accept the agreement themselves. A contractor installs stuff on their machines for them, clicks 'OK' 50 times, and leaves. Much like if we actually had to *pay* taxes, instead of most people having them withheld, if most people actually READ the LA with most software, there'd be a minor revolution.
Disable remote root? (Score:2)
Do you honestly believe that you can do this ?
I mean, sure there's some "disable remote r00t" clickety-click somewhere - as long as you cannot verify what the OS actually does about it, it means squat. Nobody promised you it would also disable the "remote w00t r00t", or the "hidden remote secret root", or the
There is one perfect solution: Keep proprietary OS machines off the network. Galvanic separation - no cable (and no antennas!) - works 100%
There is a less than perfect solution: Filter off all machines from vendor-X using products from vendor-Y. Make all machines from vendor-X resistant to attacks from the vendor-Y machines. Oh, and be damn sure that the two vendors are not affiliated, and are not controlled by the same government.
Sort of limits your options...
Unless you chose products where you can verify their operation. Note, this does not necessarily mean proof-reading the entire source, if the source is publicly available, the vendor is facing a mutual risk - *if* a backdoor is discovered he loses credibility and goes out of business, *because* there are alternative vendors available. Free Software is very clever in many ways that are not immediately obvious.
Re:Disable remote root? (Score:3, Funny)
There is a less than perfect solution: Filter off all machines from vendor-X using products from vendor-Y. Make all machines from vendor-X resistant to attacks from the vendor-Y machines. Oh, and be damn sure that the two vendors are not affiliated, and are not controlled by the same government.
This won't work, MS is slap happy about RPC over HTTP. They can even do it through a caching proxy. That means any firewall that allows web traffic won't prevent access to their Windows software on your machine. But even if you took the medical records completely off the internet this is a legal problem not a technical one. You gave them access, they might demand physical access if you don't give them electronic access. I don't see it happending, but legally, in any state where EULAs apply, they can.
The only solution here is to get MS to sign a supplementary agreement either that is satisfactory for HIPAA, or for the congress critters to pass a law forbiding overbroad hacking clauses in contracts, forcing Microsoft to rewrite their EULA for everyone.
I still think the best thing to do is deny copyright protection to any work distributed with license. Sort of a patent vs. trade secret distinction, instead you get a choice between copyright or contract.
Re:Read the EULA. (Score:2)
The Actual EULA Reproduced Here (Score:2, Informative)
Well, fight FUD with facts I say, so I downloaded SP3 and here's the actual supplemental EULA. Note bulleted point #3...it does not begin with the same "If you choose..."" qualifier as point #2. I'll leave it the legal scholars and armchair lawyers to talmudically wrangle over what sort privacy violation is inherrent in allowing "OS product" version checking and update installation. I know nothing about HIPPA.
And as for "Severability" clause the parent post referes to...Not there. So, I've never been clear, do I get Dollars or Donuts for winning the bet?
Long-ass EULA follows:
SUPPLEMENTAL END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR
MICROSOFT SOFTWARE
IMPORTANT: READ CAREFULLY - These Microsoft
Corporation ("Microsoft") operating system components,
including any "online" or electronic documentation
("OS Components") are subject to the terms and
conditions of the agreement under which you have
licensed the applicable Microsoft operating system
product described below (each an "End User License
Agreement" or "EULA") and the terms and conditions of
this Supplemental EULA.
BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR OTHERWISE USING THE
OS COMPONENTS, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE APPLICABLE OS
PRODUCT EULA AND THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA. IF
YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND
CONDITIONS, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE
OS COMPONENTS.
NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR
MICROSOFT WINDOWS 2000 PROFESSIONAL, WINDOWS
2000 SERVER, WINDOWS 2000 ADVANCED SERVER, OR
WINDOWS 2000 DATACENTER SERVER (each an "OS
Product"), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL,
COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA.
Capitalized terms used in this Supplemental EULA and not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned
to them in the applicable OS Product EULA.
General. The OS Components are provided to you by
Microsoft to update, supplement, or replace existing
functionality of the applicable OS Product. Microsoft
grants you a license to use the OS Components under the
same terms and conditions of the OS Product EULA for the
applicable OS Product (which are hereby incorporated by
reference except as otherwise set forth below) and the
terms and conditions set forth in this Supplemental EULA,
provided that you comply with all such terms and conditions.
To the extent that any terms in this Supplemental EULA
conflict with terms in the applicable OS Product EULA, the
terms of this Supplemental EULA control solely with respect
to the OS Components.
Additional Rights and Limitations.
* With respect to the OS Components only, if the licensor of the
applicable OS Product was an entity other than Microsoft,
then for the purposes of this Supplemental EULA Microsoft
will be the licensor with respect to such OS Components in
lieu of the "Manufacturer" or other entity and support, if
any, for such OS Components shall not be provided by
Manufacturer. With respect to the existing functionality
contained in the applicable OS Product which is not updated,
supplemented, or replaced by the OS Components, the EULA
for the OS Product shall remain in full force and effect as to
that OS Product.
* If you choose to utilize the update features within the OS
Product or OS Components, it is necessary to use certain
computer system, hardware, and software information to
implement the features. By using these features, you
explicitly authorize Microsoft or its designated agent to
access and utilize the necessary information for updating
purposes. Microsoft may use this information solely to
improve our products or to provide customized services or
technologies to you. Microsoft may disclose this
information to others, but not in a form that personally
identifies you.
* The OS Product or OS Components contain components that
enable and facilitate the use of certain Internet-based
services. You acknowledge and agree that Microsoft may
automatically check the version of the OS Product and/or its
components that you are utilizing and may provide upgrades
or fixes to the OS Product that will be automatically
downloaded to your computer.
* If you have multiple validly licensed copies of the applicable
OS Product(s), you may reproduce, install and use one copy
of the OS Components as part of such applicable OS Product
(s) on all of your computers running validly licensed copies
of the OS Product(s) provided that you use such additional
copies of the OS Components in accordance with the terms
and conditions above. Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or
suppliers retain all right, title and interest in and to the
OS Components. All rights not expressly granted are
reserved by Microsoft, its subsidiaries and/or suppliers.
IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO
YOU BY MICROSOFT OR ANY OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED
SUBSIDIARIES, THE LIMITED WARRANTY (IF ANY)
INCLUDED IN THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT EULA
APPLIES TO THE OS COMPONENTS PROVIDED THE OS
COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN LICENSED BY YOU WITHIN
THE TERM OF THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN THE
APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT EULA. HOWEVER, THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA DOES NOT EXTEND THE TIME
PERIOD FOR WHICH THE LIMITED WARRANTY
IS PROVIDED.
IF THE APPLICABLE OS PRODUCT WAS LICENSED TO
YOU BY AN ENTITY OTHER THAN MICROSOFT OR ANY
OF ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES, MICROSOFT
DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO THE
OS COMPONENTS AS FOLLOWS:
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES. TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, MICROSOFT
AND ITS SUPPLIERS PROVIDE TO YOU THE OS
COMPONENTS, AND ANY (IF ANY) SUPPORT SERVICES
RELATED TO THE OS COMPONENTS ("SUPPORT
SERVICES") AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; AND
MICROSOFT AND ITS SUPPLIERS HEREBY DISCLAIM
WITH RESPECT TO THE OS COMPONENTS AND
SUPPORT SERVICES ALL WARRANTIES AND
CONDITIONS, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR
STATUTORY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
ANY (IF ANY) WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF OR
RELATED TO: TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT,
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE, LACK OF VIRUSES, ACCURACY OR
COMPLETENESS OF RESPONSES, RESULTS, LACK OF
NEGLIGENCE OR LACK OF WORKMANLIKE EFFORT,
QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, AND
CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION. THE ENTIRE
RISK ARISING OUT OF USE OR PERFORMANCE OF
THE OS COMPONENTS AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES
REMAINS WITH YOU.
EXCLUSION OF INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL AND
CERTAIN OTHER DAMAGES. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT
SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE
FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR: LOSS OF
PROFITS, LOSS OF CONFIDENTIAL OR OTHER
INFORMATION, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, PERSONAL
INJURY, LOSS OF PRIVACY, FAILURE TO MEET ANY
DUTY (INCLUDING OF GOOD FAITH OR OF
REASONABLE CARE), NEGLIGENCE, AND ANY OTHER
PECUNIARY OR OTHER LOSS WHATSOEVER) ARISING
OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY RELATED TO THE USE OF OR
INABILITY TO USE THE OS COMPONENTS OR THE
SUPPORT SERVICES, OR THE PROVISION OF OR
FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, OR
OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY
PROVISION OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA, EVEN IF
MICROSOFT OR ANY SUPPLIER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF
THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY AND REMEDIES.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY DAMAGES THAT YOU MIGHT
INCUR FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, ALL DAMAGES REFERENCED
ABOVE AND ALL DIRECT OR GENERAL DAMAGES), THE
ENTIRE LIABILITY OF MICROSOFT AND ANY OF ITS
SUPPLIERS UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EULA AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY
FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY
YOU FOR THE OS COMPONENTS OR U.S.$5.00. THE
FOREGOING LIMITATIONS, EXCLUSIONS AND
DISCLAIMERS SHALL APPLY TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EVEN IF ANY
REMEDY FAILS ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE.
Re:Read the EULA. (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh come on, we know why the question was put. It was a snarky little jibe whose only purpose was to claim that HIPPA prevented the use of Windows.
It is kind of like a 'proof' that 1 = 2. We are not meant to agree with the conculsion, we are meant to admire the devious application of logic.
It is quite obvious to anyone but a moron that MSFT is not going to enforce license agreements that prevent sale of their product for use regulated by HIPPA.
It should also be obvious that the EULA term was written very broadly by a lawyer who was attempting to minimize the probability of a lawsuit if someone complained about auto-update or the like.
And it should be completely obvious that Microsoft as a US corporation is obliged to comply with HIPPA. Microsoft is one of the few US companies that actually has a privacy policy and has agreed to be regulated under the EU privacy directive.
The other fact to consider is that the Clinton era HIPPA act has since gbeen gutted by the Bush administration who have issued 'guidance' that essentially negates the whole act. Under the Bush guidelines you lose the right to opt-out. Hospitals can refuse service if you don't waive all your rights to patient confidentiality which they can do in small print. So while the act may require hospitals to install firewalls etc. etc. none of it will make any difference because the hospitals can now sell all your confidential data to the people you least want to have hold of it.
Remember this? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Nobody ever got sacked for buying IBM"
If you're just worrying about covering your behind, extent to "Nobody ever got sacked for buying Microsoft" and then to "Nobody ever got sacked for clicking through default Microsoft licenses."
I actually think that people should get sacked for doing this if they compromise their business for the sake of avoiding raising a thorny issue, but it's not going to happen in our lifetime.
Don't forget about MSN Messenger (Score:3, Insightful)
Having said that, if either of these two represents your biggest problems, then you're probably safe for a while. I don't understand what you're trying to accomplish by asking Slashdot - maybe you should try checking with your MS rep first to at least get the company line. MS is wild about HIPAA - they produce a lot of BizTalk stuff for hospital EDI needs.
Re:Don't forget about MSN Messenger (Score:2)
sPh
Red herrings R us (Score:3, Insightful)
Some clarification? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Some clarification? (Score:2)
The most obvious reason would be that if you have a physical disability (which requires medical documentation, even if it's something obvious, like, say, a missing limb), you are extremely limited in how much work you can do. Inability to work, for reasons of a physical disability, certainly affects the type of loan re-payment plan you're on.
I'd venture to say there are also special loans/grants, or special terms for loans if you're physically or mentally challenged.
A few thoughts (Score:3, Informative)
- Your W2k workstations should not be exposed to the outside world. Firewall or NAT them (or both), and remove the WindowsUpdate icons from them and let your IT staff update them manually (or via pushed updates through your domain, if you have one).
- Ideally, the server with your HIPPA stuff on it should be hidden from view as well. Dedicate a server to nothing but HIPPA file serving if you have to. If it's absolutely necessary to access the information from remote locations (i.e., one's outside your lan/wan), consider serving that information up on a web page via an IIS/SQL type of solution of some kind, but with those services running on another server. I'm not sure if HIPPA guidelines provide for this sort of thing, though.
Now that's secure :) (Score:2)
Cause we all know how secure *those* products are.
I'm not sure if HIPPA guidelines provide for this sort of thing, though.
That's the problem - I don't think *anybody* knows for certain at this stage. Things are too ambiguous (yes I've read most of the regulations)
Re:Now that's secure :) (Score:2)
It's pretty funny actually. All these departments come to us in a panic about HIPPA, we give them these fancy documents and reassuring words, and then don't hear about it again for two months. Seems to me this HIPPA stuff (right now anyway) is more about making things look good on your grant proposals and what not.
Oh, and it is possible to run a secure IIS server guys, if you know what you're doing.
Re:A few thoughts (I agree, but...) (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with what you are saying, but I feel that these questions need to be asked. Well, they shouldn't need to be asked, because MS shouldn't be doing what they are doing, but I digress.
I work for a very large company and we are implementing HIPAA into our software now. We do all kinds of software for hospitals. The reason I think that this issue needs to be brought up is because most people don't even think about the holes that MS creates. I asked a very similar question to our director of operations a while ago, and he said basically that if the hospitals don't have firewalls, then they have bigger problems. While this may be true, I still think it is good to ask the question, so that people are aware of the "Microsoft issue". The people who maintain the firewall need to know about the autoupdate, so that they can block it at the firewall. They need to know about these vulnerabilitites, so they can plug them. I don't trust that they will be keeping up on these things. After all, who would have thought that the OS you run could create a huge gaping hole in your security and potentially hold you liable for violating federal regulations?
Check Out MSHUG.ORG or HL7 (Score:5, Informative)
They strictly adhere to all governmental regulations for healthcare records including EDI and storing of sensitive medical records.
The medical industry is a huge economic buyer in the hardware and software industry and MS based vendors have always been in strict compliance with government standards.
1. Check to see if your software is HL7(health care 7) HL7 is a protocol for formatting, transmitting and receiving data in a healthcare environment.
2. Ask your vendor how they store the medical rcords, is it hl7 compliant. I think you guys have a homegrown product? IF your product is home grown it does'nt apply to the governmental standard for handling medical data, the EULA is the least of your worries.
3. IF the product is home grown. Cover your ass.
MSHUG is microsoft centric but a good start for you.
I did medical software for ten years and dealt with all these issues long ago. Your vendor should be able to point you in the right direction. BUT IF YOUR SOFTWARE CAME FROM A VAR, DONT ASK HIM, CALL THE ACTUAL HOME COMPANY! The developers will give you more of a straight answer than the var.
PUTO
Watch out for the 'disable' option (Score:5, Interesting)
It does not.
The root of the problem is the agreement that M$ CAN download software on your computer without prior notification. If you agree to that, it really makes no difference if you check a box that tells you machine not to do it. At any time, either pre-programed or by an addition that you make, M$ can uncheck that box without letting you know. Think about it, if you sign a document that states I have the privilage to do something (whatever it is) and then you (outside of that document) simply tell me not to do it, am I legally bound not to do it? It is possible that not even using SUS (software update server) will mitigate this.
Also don't feel secure about non-W2K products either. Most (and soon all, I suspect) products M$ releases contain that same provision. If you have updated MediaPlayer ( I believe it is one with the new verbiage) then you have already given consent for M$ to add software to your machine whenever they choose. NOT Maybe, NOT sometime soon, NOT only if you have W2K, but right now on the box you are currently using. And although I don't have it right infront of me now, I'm pretty sure that mediaplayer even specificly mentions that current features may be removed (playing MP3's) by the unannounced 'upgrades'.
Although we are still evaluating this with our legal staff, it looks very possible that we will be purging M$ products from the vast majority of our network.
oh, DARN ! ;)
And for the record, I am not a lawyer. Don't take this as legal advise. Heck, I could be dead wrong. Localities and Nationalities will obviously differ in their approaches.
Also facing this problem (Score:4, Interesting)
We're in the process of forwarding this off to our legal staff for review, but in IT, we're now giving serious consideration to a conversion to Macs on the desktop (which would still allow compatibility and ease of use while avoiding the problematic issues involved).
Re:Also facing this problem (Score:3)
Easy one... (Score:2)
Use Macs or Linux?
Woah, woah...hang on a second here.... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not a problem (Score:2)
Discaimer: The poster of this message is not implying that Microsoft is trustworthy. The poster of this message does not trust Microsoft. This was a joke. :)
answer to the question (Score:2)
Simple use Windows NT 4.0 with SP6a
and exactly why did you switch from it to begin with? what extremely important feature that Windows 2000 has that you absolutely needed?
upgrading because you can is never a good reason.. Most of Big Corperate america is just now starting to roll out W2K servers.. and they Keep NT4 servers running becasue there is no reason to upgrade them. (up until last month the very large multi-national corperation I work for had a policy that NO Windows 200 servers were allowed on the network, anyone upgrading their servers to W2K will be fired without question.)
Perhaps a lawsuit would be appropriate (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that unacceptable changes to the EULA for a service pack might void the implied warranty usability of Windows 2000. By releasing the service pack, they are admitting that Windows 2000 has problems. If I cannot get access to fixes for those problems without agreeing to a contract substantially different from that which governed my license for Windows 2000, I think that I might have a good basis for a lawsuit to get a court order that Microsoft supply fixes to their software under the terms of the original EULA.
Re:Perhaps a lawsuit would be appropriate (Score:3, Interesting)
You will need damages. You can't sue without showing damages.
However this HIPAA concern carries with it some dire implications. I wonder if it will actually get the attention of the appropriate people (let's say, a large hospital, prefereably one
that is either a very influential one, e.g., the
Naval Hospital in Bethesda which has the added benefit of being a governmental body, or say a
big research institution, Johns Hopkins or Northwestern will do fine).
If it occurs to the right people (the ones with the bread to make a real difference) that the current licensing is entirely incompatable with the laws that the must follow, and that the exposure to liability is huge (it only takes one malpractice suit to end a doctor's career), then
we might someday hear about a secondary license that is granted for certain institutions by Microsoft.
Unfortunately, I don't suppose many people are aware of this problem, so the phones at MS headquarters have not been ringing off the wall
with attorneys who represent hospitals and physicians demanding satisfaction on this matter.
I suspect that it will take a federal lawsuit against someone who has been caught with their pants down, and this will be but one of many incidents of noncompliance with various regulations raised in the case.
The problem that many slashdot posters don't seem
to understand is that we're not talking about an
"illegal contract", but rather, that is might be
technically illegal for a party to agree to a particular contract. This is only a problem if the party with the problematic contract will not negotiate, and is also only a problem if there is no alternative.
In many cases, there is only one choice for an operating system. If it is illegal for physicians to use that one choice, then it may be too high-risk for a physician to use computer systems for certain tasks at all.
Get More Than Just a Lawyer (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds like you have multiple areas to look at -- your data storage, your data transmission (you aren't just creating those medical records from thin air, are you?), your partner companies, and how you handle the Patient Identifying Health Information on the desktop. Not to mention that your company should have been preparing for this for QUITE some time now.
First, you'll need to make sure that your data storage, transmission and handling (includes handing paper copies around), and desktop security are all compliant. Next you'll find that you are also responsible for making sure that any business partner companies are compliant. This task basically means getting your partner companies to sign "HIPAA Business Partner Agreement" contracts that means the partner company states that they are contractually obligated to handle any patient data of yours in a means that is also HIPAA compliant.
Finally, and most important of all, you'll need to be able to document all of the above, in a form that the government inspectors can easily use to check your compliance. Yay.
Get yer HIPAA-lovin' lawyers on the stick as fast as you can, and file for any extensions that may apply. You will need a complete inventory of any and all computing infrastructure (servers, workstations, network, and software) that touches identifying patient medical data. You will need to have this inventory so your CIO, lawyers, computer security experts and your HIPAA remediation consultants can check the compliance of everything on the list. Anything failing compliance, you'll need to fix or replace.
One last thing: you are also responsible for making sure that the source of your medical data is asking permission to use that medical data, and is asking that permission in a way that is compliant.
I hope this provides you with a decent starting point. Good luck, you have a hard task ahead of you.
Anyone know of and hard rules posted anywhere? (Score:3, Insightful)
Every time I ask Google about this it seems like I end up bouncing back and forth between the same three or four sites never quite finding what I'm after -- kinda like pr0n, but not as fun. So here goes...
Does anyone know of any free/nonfree resources, documents or URLs that list the networking, server and policy encryption and configuration standards required for HIPAA compliance? Consider this from the point of view of a network administrator for a small health services company that buys all of its software from outside vendors (no internal development).
Please don't answer http://hhs.gov. I know about those, and I'm hoping to find a summary or sorts, not the original regs. I'm also aware that the rules themselves are vague and unspecific, and may or may not specifically mention networking and servers hardware software and practices, so I'd appreciate that someone confirm that if it is the case.
Read the FAQ. (Score:3, Interesting)
If over $5 million, you've still got two years to comply.
Either way, the max fine for non-compliance is $25K/Year, and they don't even know how they're going to find you...
I'm not saying you should slack on this, I'm just saying it's not a "huge,huge" crisis situation. Deal with basic, common sense security and do more research. You've got time to do this right.
Attorney's Take (Score:4, Informative)
Reasonable Assurances... The writer who states that the covered entity need only take reasonable precautions. What is or is not reasonable depends on too many factors. I happen to think that if you disable the feature, that action seems pretty reasonable. I for one, am not worried about the EULA. I'm more worried about things like password protection, access to the file room and the like.
Illegal Contracts... As someone else correctly states, contracts that are contrary to law cannot be enforced (at least the illegal provision).
Covered entites... Chris, who wrote the original message may not need to worry about HIPAA. HIPAA covers mostly medical providers and insurance companies. It also covers self-insured companies and the like, but I don't think it covers loan applications. Of course, Chris could be a business associate of a covered entity.
Business associates... A covered entity must obtain satisfactory assurances from its business associates (accountants, lawyers, billing companies) that the health information is protected. As someone correctly notes, that requires an agreement known as a business associate agreement/contract.
As a side note, I've begun to draft an article about what HIPAA requires... the language in the law actually asks the covered entity to make sure that they have "satisfctory assurances" that the business associate safeguard personal health information ("PHI" although some call it "individually identifiable health information")
Re:MS Windows EULA not HIPAA compliant (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:MS Windows EULA not HIPAA compliant (Score:2)
Huh?
What do you mean? What guarantees do I get that Microsoft isn't changing policies again and starts to do really nasty things? Face it: *Anything* can happen. Microsoft might never use their power or they might start deleting warez tomorrow.
It's stupid to be dependent on a single-vendor solution. And it doesn't matter if the vendor is called Microsoft, Apple or Sun.
Re:MS Windows EULA not HIPAA compliant (Score:4, Informative)
It doesn't matter if Windows systems are a monopoly, and everyone has them. They will find everyone they audit to be out of complience. Auditors are looking for a score, they don't give a shit about your ability to do business.
BTW: This EULA aslo is not FDA part 11 compliant either. Locked down systems would need to be revalidated after any and all autoupdates.
Re:Locked down != autoupdated (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps the answer is yes today, but will this always be the case? Remember, because of Microsoft you have a "license" to use the software, you do not own it. I believe there will come day when you will need to pay to continue to use the operating system or it will disable itself. For corporations, it might not be so harsh, but may involve sending billing information to Microsoft to provide a count so they can bill the corporation, a large lump sum.
This kind of activation system will also, I'm sure update the system with at least the keys to run for another year and more than likely many more updates, and it WON'T be optional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Parent is not redundant. (Score:2)
Re:HPIAA logo? (Score:2)
Re:HPIAA logo? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Morons, Idiots, and Fools...Oh My! (Score:3, Informative)
If so, I guess I would be a bit slower to call other people "morons & idiots". Because the fundamental problem is in the EULA, not in the service packs or download mechanism. One could take all the steps you have described and (potentially) still be in violation of the privacy statutes, since by agreeing to the EULA you have agreed to allow Microsoft access to your systems under circumstances controlled only by Microsoft.
sPh
Re:Morons, Idiots, and Fools...Oh My! (Score:2)
Alas, I will bow to your knowledge on the subject because I have not done the due dilegence to argue. Please enlighten me why this is even and issue if all you have to do is turn off the auto update feature.
Re:Morons, Idiots, and Fools...Oh My! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I get it. But you're wrong. (-:
The machine is not the problem, the data are the problem. One of the constellation of possible actions which you authorise Microsoft to take when you agree to the EULA on any Windows workstation in the LAN is to install a sniffer (call it `Microsoft Diagnostics for a Networked Medical Environment 6.0' to drive the point home). The data is no use to anyone if it stays on the server, but as soon as it leaves the server and wanders past a Windows box, Bill can glom it and shove it into the `My Data' folder.
BTW, you didn't think the `My' in `My Computer' and `My Documents' referred to the user, did you?
Ah, that reminds me of l0pht's motto: `Making the theoretical practical since 1992 [com.com]'.
Re:Morons, Idiots, and Fools...Oh My! (Score:2)
The records would exist in transit on individual workstations and the workstations would need authenticated access to the DB, so MS's access of that workstation could conceivably compromise a centralized database. Also, I would expect that this EULA provision would eventually extend to MS's server Operating Systems. Better to be prepared.
But that's what you are agreeing to when you click through the EULA for this patch. So, installing this patch makes you an idiot. Fair enough.
Re:Morons, Idiots, and Fools...Oh My! (Score:3, Informative)
That said, I'm almost certain that Win2k, with or without a service pack, will be HIPAA compliant since many, many medical and scientific organizations use it for their main operating system, and coordinating an upgrade to something else in the next 7 months would be near impossible. We really don't have much of a choice in what OS to use, though, since if all the programs we need are only available in Win32 versions, that's what we'll use.
Re:Morons, Idiots, and Fools...Oh My! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Time for your company to dump microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
Elitist IT Moron: We have decided that Microsoft products are no good, and we're going to switch all of our operations to Linux-based solutions.
Docs: Well, OK, just as long as we can still get our work done. Will we still be able to send our grant applications and other records to the various governmental agencies, other hospitals, and such without and problems?
Elitist IT Moron: Well you'll be using this open source word processing program that is designed to be compatible with Word, but there is a chance that some places won't be able to view it properly, or it will look slightly different. Medical companies aren't sticklers for complete and total accuracy, are they?
Docs: What about these hundreds of legacy DOS and Windows applications that do one thing for us, but do it incredibly well, that we absolutely have to have? Will they still run?
Elitist IT Moron: Umm...No. But there may be 0.85 pre-beta versions of comperable apps up at SourceForge we could try! Or we could maybe try Wine and see if we can get a few of them to work.
Docs: So basically you're telling us that by switching to Linux, we won't be able to properly communicate with the people we need to, and we won't be able to use the applications we need to.
Elitist IT Moron: Uhh....W1nd0ze suxxor?
Re:I've been trying to get an answer to this mysel (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I still think this is all one big troll (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't remember that hue? Neither do I. Yeah, they agreed to pay a 500k "settlement". Big whoop. Your data was "repurposed" and you had no say. Too bad!
sPh
Re:From one who works with these issues (Score:3, Insightful)