Refer to Wall Street Journal article: Is Government Health Care Constitutional?
The authors fear that Americans' health privacy rights will be eliminated by health reform if a proposed "public plan" evolves into "single payer".
They are too late, there is no privacy (the right to control personal information) in the US electronic health system ---EXCEPT for the strong new rights Congress added to the stimulus bill: the ban on sales of PHI, the right to segment sensitive records, and the right to limit disclosure of PHI to health plans for payment or HCO if treatment is paid for out-of-pocket.
Our strong existing ethical and legal privacy rights (a powerful national consensus arrived at over 200+ years) are being totally ignored by federal and state government and industry.
The authors clearly don't know that we have no health privacy today or that privacy advocates in the bipartisan Coalition for Patient Privacy (representing 10 million Americans) work to restore those rights.
In 2002, amendments to the HIPAA regulations granted new rights to corporations and government to use ALL health data without informed consent for purposes no one would ever agree to AND eliminated Americans' rights to give consent before our data is used. See: http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HIPAA_Intent_Vs_Reality . In 1999, the HIPAA statute granted law enforcement unfettered access to all electronic health records without informed consent or any judicial process.
Both Democratic and Republican Administrations and Congress have contributed to eliminating patients' rights to control personal health information. The ONC-Coordinated Federal Health IT Strategic Plan: 2008-2012, requires all EHRs to be "wired" for data mining and requires every citizen to have an EHR by 2014.
See: http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/site/DocServer/HITStrategicPlan08.pdf?docID=5161
The Federal Strategic Plan grants "back door" access to the nation's electronic records to government agencies; to the for-profit research industry for P4P, QI, population health, genetic research (personalized medicine), etc; and to the insurance industry to detect fraud (this is one of the most offensive and discriminatory measures planned--the last people patients want to have MORE access to sensitive health records are insurers and employers).
Key Quotes:
• The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s
• the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
• Taking key decisions away from patient and physician, or otherwise limiting their available choices, will render any new system constitutionally vulnerable.
• if over time, as many critics fear, a "public option" health insurance plan turns into what amounts to a single-payer system, the constitutional issues regarding treatment and reimbursement decisions will be manifold. The same will be true of a quasi-private system where the government claims a large role in defining acceptable health-insurance coverage and treatments. There will be all sorts of "undue burdens" on the rights of patients to receive the care they may want. Then the litigation will begin.
• In crafting the law, however, its White House and congressional sponsors must keep privacy -- that near absolute right to personal autonomy they have so often praised and promoted -- squarely before them. The only thing that is certain today is that the courts, and not Congress, will have the last word.
The authors tilt at the wrong windmill --not realizing they are too late: the privacy for health data in electronic systems is already GONE. We hope they will join us and work to RESTORE Americans' longstanding ethical and legal rights to health privacy--regardless of a "public plan" or whether it turns into "single payer".
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Monday, June 22, 2009
Sunday, May 17, 2009
HIMSS & Who is Promoting HIT in Stimulus Spending?
This story tells how HIMSS and Harvard's Blackford Middleton promoted spending billions on health IT in the stimulus bill.
HIMSS and Blackford believe that health technology will be the silver bullet that enables healthcare reform and kills/slows higher costs. That may be possible, but is highly doubtful because the billions are such a bonanza for the health IT industry.
Will this be yet another example of the stimulus billions being used to prop up large corporations, but not to save individual patients who are sick?
Not only does most of health IT vendor industry NOT care about whether healthcare reform succeeds or not, they actively fought to weaken Americans' rights to privacy and security. By law, industry cares about maximizing revenue, not treating the sick.
So the BIG question is: will the government require all electronic health records systems to have the tough privacy and security measures the public expects and needs to trust these systems? Will the government require electonic health systems to build in our legal and ethical rights to privacy up front?
Most of the HIT industry lobbied to sell the same old dinosaur products and against privacy. The incumbents are very powerful and not interested in change OR IN OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS.
HIMSS and Blackford believe that health technology will be the silver bullet that enables healthcare reform and kills/slows higher costs. That may be possible, but is highly doubtful because the billions are such a bonanza for the health IT industry.
Will this be yet another example of the stimulus billions being used to prop up large corporations, but not to save individual patients who are sick?
Not only does most of health IT vendor industry NOT care about whether healthcare reform succeeds or not, they actively fought to weaken Americans' rights to privacy and security. By law, industry cares about maximizing revenue, not treating the sick.
So the BIG question is: will the government require all electronic health records systems to have the tough privacy and security measures the public expects and needs to trust these systems? Will the government require electonic health systems to build in our legal and ethical rights to privacy up front?
Most of the HIT industry lobbied to sell the same old dinosaur products and against privacy. The incumbents are very powerful and not interested in change OR IN OUR PRIVACY RIGHTS.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Reducing Cost or Care? Orszag on HIT
Fascinating 'insider' article on the budget process and the Orzag/Obama plan to reduce healthcare costs by building a health IT system 'wired' for data mining:
"At the core of both the stimulus bill and the Obama budget is Orszag’s belief that a government empowered with research on the most effective medical treatments can, using the proper incentives, persuade doctors to become more efficient health-care providers, thus saving billions of dollars. Obama is in effect betting his Presidency on Orszag’s thesis." (See Article)
"Orszag seems more right than wrong about how to bring down health-care costs, but the truth is that, while there is obviously a great deal of waste in the American medical system, nobody knows for certain whether Orszag’s plan—which is now Obama’s plan—will work."
The plan relies on building HIT infrastructure to obtain the data for "comparative effectiveness" research. Republicans question whether this research approach can reign in healthcare spending enough and also fear it will lead to "vast government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship". And the plan relies on building an HIT system to data mine ALL data without informed consent.
Our problems with the plan:
1) Orzag/Obama want ALL health data without informed consent for research, which is unethical, illegal, and destroys patient trust in doctors.
2) Orzag/Obama do not seem to realize that compelling the use of all health data will INCREASE the number of Americans who avoid treatment altogether (already in the millions). Many Americans know that avoiding care is the only way to keep health data private.
3) Millions avoiding treatment means millions delay care or never get care, increasing bad outcomes, deaths, and costs.
4) But worst of all for proponents of research: they won't get the data needed to learn what works best unless they restore privacy and patient control over data. Researchers cannot get the results all of us want with missing and inaccurate data!
5) To find out what the most effective treatments are for many costly conditions we have to actually have all the data in our systems. Today millions of people with Depression and Addiction have NO data in the system because they pay for private care or attend AA or NA so NO data is ever generated.
6) It will be a tragedy never to find out what treatments are most effective---and a HUGE waste of the billions of stimulus dollars to build an HIT system without privacy.
Key Quotes from the article:
• The deficit spectre has loomed over every major debate. The most contentious issue has been health care.
• Orszag came to the debate with a third option, which combined Summers’s concern about deficits and Daschle’s insistence that Obama tackle health care this year. He argued that health-care reform is deficit reduction.
• At the core of both the stimulus bill and the Obama budget is Orszag’s belief that a government empowered with research on the most effective medical treatments can, using the proper incentives, persuade doctors to become more efficient health-care providers, thus saving billions of dollars. Obama is in effect betting his Presidency on Orszag’s thesis.
• Orszag, despite his image as a number-crunching technocrat, considers himself an activist.
• At Princeton, he wrote his senior thesis on the relationship between the Federal Reserve and Congress. One of his conclusions was that “it is clear that Congress suffers from a lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary economics.” Orszag’s paper won an award for the best thesis that year in international economics or politics.
• At the Congressional Budget Office, Orszag hired specialists in health-care economics and turned the institution into a clearinghouse of information about rising health-care costs. When I asked him whether he was an advocate for policies at a place that was supposed to be nonpartisan, he replied, “I would say I was activist.”
• Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has made eradicating the federal budget deficit his life’s work. He told me that he picked Orszag to run the C.B.O. in 2007, and repeatedly asked him to testify before his committee, because they shared a concern about long-term spending trends.
• If there was one aspect of the President’s budget that demonstrated Obama’s European sympathies, Ryan said, it was health care. More specifically, it was Orszag’s approach to curbing health-care costs. “He believes you need to set up this über-bureaucracy—the institute of comparative effectiveness—which we’ll put smart people in, and they will design the metrics and the processes on how medicine is to be practiced,” Ryan said. “And then the federal government will impose and enforce those processes. . . . It is precisely what they employ in England. It’s precisely what they employ in Canada.” Rather than celebrate Orszag’s attempt to rein in health-care spending, Ryan seemed horrified by it.
• Obama will spend the rest of this year fighting a war on two fronts. On one are Democrats protecting old-line economic interests: oil, gas, and coal companies; agribusiness; student-loan companies; and pharmaceutical companies and medical providers who fear that Orszag’s ideas for cutting health-care costs will hit them hard. On the other are institutional interests. Obama will be battling committee chairmen who oppose his Pell-grant reforms, and placating senators who resent his willingness to use a feature of the budget process known as “reconciliation,” which limits debate and prevents the use of a filibuster, to pass his health-care plan.
• Orszag’s job is to defend Obama’s budget on all fronts, but he will be most deeply engaged in health care. I asked him how he could be so sure that his ideas about how to reduce health-care costs would work, mentioning that I had been surprised to learn that Paul Ryan and other Republicans had seized on health-care cost controls as the issue they believed would bring down Obama’s health-care plan and, with it, they surely hoped, his Presidency. Specifically, they believed that Orszag’s obsession with “comparative effectiveness,” research about which treatment options work best for a given ailment, will lead to vast government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. The research, which received major funding in the stimulus legislation and which was also included in Obama’s budget, had assumed a sinister meaning on the right.
• Orszag dismissed the criticism as a caricature. “I don’t see how it interferes with the doctor-patient relationship to suggest that it would be better if your doctor had more information about what would work for you,” he said. “The best way of putting it is that your doctor shouldn’t have disincentives to give you the higher-quality care, which often happens now.” Far from a huge government bureaucracy, he proposes a simple adjustment of incentives: “You get paid more if the treatment has been shown to be effective and a little less if not.”
• Orszag seems more right than wrong about how to bring down health-care costs, but the truth is that, while there is obviously a great deal of waste in the American medical system, nobody knows for certain whether Orszag’s plan—which is now Obama’s plan—will work.
• As Orszag explained his ideas, I couldn’t help remembering an encounter I had with him one day in the hallway at O.M.B. I told him that I had read his Princeton undergraduate thesis. He looked at me and smiled a little sheepishly. He said that at some point after his arrival at graduate school, in London, he had had a sudden realization: that he had made a mistake, and the crucial formula that he had used in his thesis, the one that had won him the prize, was incorrect. “It was so innovative,” he said, “that it was wrong.”
"At the core of both the stimulus bill and the Obama budget is Orszag’s belief that a government empowered with research on the most effective medical treatments can, using the proper incentives, persuade doctors to become more efficient health-care providers, thus saving billions of dollars. Obama is in effect betting his Presidency on Orszag’s thesis." (See Article)
"Orszag seems more right than wrong about how to bring down health-care costs, but the truth is that, while there is obviously a great deal of waste in the American medical system, nobody knows for certain whether Orszag’s plan—which is now Obama’s plan—will work."
The plan relies on building HIT infrastructure to obtain the data for "comparative effectiveness" research. Republicans question whether this research approach can reign in healthcare spending enough and also fear it will lead to "vast government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship". And the plan relies on building an HIT system to data mine ALL data without informed consent.
Our problems with the plan:
1) Orzag/Obama want ALL health data without informed consent for research, which is unethical, illegal, and destroys patient trust in doctors.
2) Orzag/Obama do not seem to realize that compelling the use of all health data will INCREASE the number of Americans who avoid treatment altogether (already in the millions). Many Americans know that avoiding care is the only way to keep health data private.
3) Millions avoiding treatment means millions delay care or never get care, increasing bad outcomes, deaths, and costs.
4) But worst of all for proponents of research: they won't get the data needed to learn what works best unless they restore privacy and patient control over data. Researchers cannot get the results all of us want with missing and inaccurate data!
5) To find out what the most effective treatments are for many costly conditions we have to actually have all the data in our systems. Today millions of people with Depression and Addiction have NO data in the system because they pay for private care or attend AA or NA so NO data is ever generated.
6) It will be a tragedy never to find out what treatments are most effective---and a HUGE waste of the billions of stimulus dollars to build an HIT system without privacy.
Key Quotes from the article:
• The deficit spectre has loomed over every major debate. The most contentious issue has been health care.
• Orszag came to the debate with a third option, which combined Summers’s concern about deficits and Daschle’s insistence that Obama tackle health care this year. He argued that health-care reform is deficit reduction.
• At the core of both the stimulus bill and the Obama budget is Orszag’s belief that a government empowered with research on the most effective medical treatments can, using the proper incentives, persuade doctors to become more efficient health-care providers, thus saving billions of dollars. Obama is in effect betting his Presidency on Orszag’s thesis.
• Orszag, despite his image as a number-crunching technocrat, considers himself an activist.
• At Princeton, he wrote his senior thesis on the relationship between the Federal Reserve and Congress. One of his conclusions was that “it is clear that Congress suffers from a lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary economics.” Orszag’s paper won an award for the best thesis that year in international economics or politics.
• At the Congressional Budget Office, Orszag hired specialists in health-care economics and turned the institution into a clearinghouse of information about rising health-care costs. When I asked him whether he was an advocate for policies at a place that was supposed to be nonpartisan, he replied, “I would say I was activist.”
• Kent Conrad, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, has made eradicating the federal budget deficit his life’s work. He told me that he picked Orszag to run the C.B.O. in 2007, and repeatedly asked him to testify before his committee, because they shared a concern about long-term spending trends.
• If there was one aspect of the President’s budget that demonstrated Obama’s European sympathies, Ryan said, it was health care. More specifically, it was Orszag’s approach to curbing health-care costs. “He believes you need to set up this über-bureaucracy—the institute of comparative effectiveness—which we’ll put smart people in, and they will design the metrics and the processes on how medicine is to be practiced,” Ryan said. “And then the federal government will impose and enforce those processes. . . . It is precisely what they employ in England. It’s precisely what they employ in Canada.” Rather than celebrate Orszag’s attempt to rein in health-care spending, Ryan seemed horrified by it.
• Obama will spend the rest of this year fighting a war on two fronts. On one are Democrats protecting old-line economic interests: oil, gas, and coal companies; agribusiness; student-loan companies; and pharmaceutical companies and medical providers who fear that Orszag’s ideas for cutting health-care costs will hit them hard. On the other are institutional interests. Obama will be battling committee chairmen who oppose his Pell-grant reforms, and placating senators who resent his willingness to use a feature of the budget process known as “reconciliation,” which limits debate and prevents the use of a filibuster, to pass his health-care plan.
• Orszag’s job is to defend Obama’s budget on all fronts, but he will be most deeply engaged in health care. I asked him how he could be so sure that his ideas about how to reduce health-care costs would work, mentioning that I had been surprised to learn that Paul Ryan and other Republicans had seized on health-care cost controls as the issue they believed would bring down Obama’s health-care plan and, with it, they surely hoped, his Presidency. Specifically, they believed that Orszag’s obsession with “comparative effectiveness,” research about which treatment options work best for a given ailment, will lead to vast government intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. The research, which received major funding in the stimulus legislation and which was also included in Obama’s budget, had assumed a sinister meaning on the right.
• Orszag dismissed the criticism as a caricature. “I don’t see how it interferes with the doctor-patient relationship to suggest that it would be better if your doctor had more information about what would work for you,” he said. “The best way of putting it is that your doctor shouldn’t have disincentives to give you the higher-quality care, which often happens now.” Far from a huge government bureaucracy, he proposes a simple adjustment of incentives: “You get paid more if the treatment has been shown to be effective and a little less if not.”
• Orszag seems more right than wrong about how to bring down health-care costs, but the truth is that, while there is obviously a great deal of waste in the American medical system, nobody knows for certain whether Orszag’s plan—which is now Obama’s plan—will work.
• As Orszag explained his ideas, I couldn’t help remembering an encounter I had with him one day in the hallway at O.M.B. I told him that I had read his Princeton undergraduate thesis. He looked at me and smiled a little sheepishly. He said that at some point after his arrival at graduate school, in London, he had had a sudden realization: that he had made a mistake, and the crucial formula that he had used in his thesis, the one that had won him the prize, was incorrect. “It was so innovative,” he said, “that it was wrong.”
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
More than just google
In response to the Consumer Watch article: "U.S. Senate Records Reveal Google Inc. Lobbying Campaign On Personal Medical Records Law Despite Internet Giant's Denials"
This story is of interest because the public has no idea which corporations lobbied against their privacy rights in the stimulus bill or how much was spent overall to try to eliminate health privacy.
The focus on Google alone is misleading and actually distracts from the real work of informing the public about the major health-related industries that have long opposed Americans' privacy rights. The real question is which other industry giants that are not household names lobbied against privacy?
The total lobbying money spent by the massive secret health data mining industry, insurers, hospitals, and big Pharma to oppose Americans' rights to privacy far exceeds Google's lobbying expenses.
If we don’t know who all the culprits are, we can't stop them and restore privacy.
The most dangerous enemies of privacy are the ones we don’t know about.
This story is of interest because the public has no idea which corporations lobbied against their privacy rights in the stimulus bill or how much was spent overall to try to eliminate health privacy.
The focus on Google alone is misleading and actually distracts from the real work of informing the public about the major health-related industries that have long opposed Americans' privacy rights. The real question is which other industry giants that are not household names lobbied against privacy?
The total lobbying money spent by the massive secret health data mining industry, insurers, hospitals, and big Pharma to oppose Americans' rights to privacy far exceeds Google's lobbying expenses.
If we don’t know who all the culprits are, we can't stop them and restore privacy.
The most dangerous enemies of privacy are the ones we don’t know about.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Response to: Will Technology Cure Health Care — Or Kill It?
Giving your genome to a for-profit corporation for testing today is a very dangerous act for the following reasons:
1) Americans NO longer have the right to health privacy! Today, your rights to health privacy in electronic health systems are nil. You have no control over personal electronic health information. Federal bureaucrats eliminated our rights to control the use and disclosures of personal health information in electronic systems in 2002. The media has not reported on this drastic elimination of every Americans’ privacy rights. See HIPAA's Intent v. Reality.
2) Once you reveal your genome, you will never be able to delete it from the private corporation’s data bases or make it private again. Why on earth would you pay someone to take and use the most personal health data that exists about you and your family for whatever purposes they choose? Think about Paris Hilton’s sex video, once it was out in cyberspace, it can never be private again. It will live for millenia on the Internet.
3) Why pay a private corporation like 23andMe or any other for-profit genetic testing lab to take your extremely valuable and sensitive personal health data and give it to them as a CORPORATE asset—to sell, to disclose to researchers for studies you might not want to be part of, to sell as an asset to employers or insurers or financial institutions, or even to sell to the US Government as part of the data profiles they are building on every American in Fusion Centers.
4) The legal duties of coporations are to stockholders, not to patients or people who buy genetic tests. Genetic testing labs like 23andMe can be bought by Google or the Bank of America or to a business that sells employers genetic snapshots of future employees’ potential illnesses. Even if you trust a genetic lab—-you have no control over whether that corporation is sold to another corporation that you would never want to own your DNA.
5) Today’s health IT systems are notoriously insecure and hackable. An industry study of 850 electronic health records systems found ALL of them could easily be hacked. See Article.
What assurances do you have that the lab’s database is secure enough to prevent your genome or genetic tests from being stolen?
6) It is crtical to understand that giving ownerhsip of a personal asset like your DNA or genome to a corporation is a very bad idea. Not only do you put your future opportunities at risk, you endanger your entire family’s futures at the same time.
As a practicing physician who has spent over 30 years listening to patients whose sensitve medical records were used against them by employers or used to humiliate them or harm them in public, I am very well aware of how personal health information is used to harm people and ruin lives. I founded Patient Privacy Rights because health information should never be used except to help you get well or for research WITH your informed consent. No one should be denied a job or a promotion because of fears about their future health.
Because of the lack of privacy, 600,000 people refuse to seek treatment or early diagnosis for cancer and 2,000,000 refuse treatment for mental illness. 150,000 Iraqi vets refuse treatment for PTSD because they fear their treatment will not be private. The result is the highest rate of suicide among active duty military in 30 years. The lack of health privacy kills.
Current law is just not enough to protect health privacy. GINA is not enough. We need Congress to restore our longstanding Constitutional, legal, and ethical rights to control personal health information. Without that right firmly re-established in Federal law, giving ANYONE your sensitive genomic or health information is a very bad idea.
Check out our website. You can sign up for e-alerts about health privacy in the Digital Age. If we are able to restore control over our personal digital health information, then we have a powerful model for building personal control over ALL our personal electronic data (financial, email, phone records, purchases, etc). If you do not fight for your privacy rights, who will?
If EVERYTHING about you is for sale and can be seen by everyone, will you continue to have your precious liberties and freedoms?
See Original Article
1) Americans NO longer have the right to health privacy! Today, your rights to health privacy in electronic health systems are nil. You have no control over personal electronic health information. Federal bureaucrats eliminated our rights to control the use and disclosures of personal health information in electronic systems in 2002. The media has not reported on this drastic elimination of every Americans’ privacy rights. See HIPAA's Intent v. Reality.
2) Once you reveal your genome, you will never be able to delete it from the private corporation’s data bases or make it private again. Why on earth would you pay someone to take and use the most personal health data that exists about you and your family for whatever purposes they choose? Think about Paris Hilton’s sex video, once it was out in cyberspace, it can never be private again. It will live for millenia on the Internet.
3) Why pay a private corporation like 23andMe or any other for-profit genetic testing lab to take your extremely valuable and sensitive personal health data and give it to them as a CORPORATE asset—to sell, to disclose to researchers for studies you might not want to be part of, to sell as an asset to employers or insurers or financial institutions, or even to sell to the US Government as part of the data profiles they are building on every American in Fusion Centers.
4) The legal duties of coporations are to stockholders, not to patients or people who buy genetic tests. Genetic testing labs like 23andMe can be bought by Google or the Bank of America or to a business that sells employers genetic snapshots of future employees’ potential illnesses. Even if you trust a genetic lab—-you have no control over whether that corporation is sold to another corporation that you would never want to own your DNA.
5) Today’s health IT systems are notoriously insecure and hackable. An industry study of 850 electronic health records systems found ALL of them could easily be hacked. See Article.
What assurances do you have that the lab’s database is secure enough to prevent your genome or genetic tests from being stolen?
6) It is crtical to understand that giving ownerhsip of a personal asset like your DNA or genome to a corporation is a very bad idea. Not only do you put your future opportunities at risk, you endanger your entire family’s futures at the same time.
As a practicing physician who has spent over 30 years listening to patients whose sensitve medical records were used against them by employers or used to humiliate them or harm them in public, I am very well aware of how personal health information is used to harm people and ruin lives. I founded Patient Privacy Rights because health information should never be used except to help you get well or for research WITH your informed consent. No one should be denied a job or a promotion because of fears about their future health.
Because of the lack of privacy, 600,000 people refuse to seek treatment or early diagnosis for cancer and 2,000,000 refuse treatment for mental illness. 150,000 Iraqi vets refuse treatment for PTSD because they fear their treatment will not be private. The result is the highest rate of suicide among active duty military in 30 years. The lack of health privacy kills.
Current law is just not enough to protect health privacy. GINA is not enough. We need Congress to restore our longstanding Constitutional, legal, and ethical rights to control personal health information. Without that right firmly re-established in Federal law, giving ANYONE your sensitive genomic or health information is a very bad idea.
Check out our website. You can sign up for e-alerts about health privacy in the Digital Age. If we are able to restore control over our personal digital health information, then we have a powerful model for building personal control over ALL our personal electronic data (financial, email, phone records, purchases, etc). If you do not fight for your privacy rights, who will?
If EVERYTHING about you is for sale and can be seen by everyone, will you continue to have your precious liberties and freedoms?
See Original Article
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Equipment losses still plague VA: GAO report -- by Joseph Conn
This is powerful story because the expert quoted points out that most organizations do not bother to account for lost or stolen equipment that costs less than $2,000. That means laptops and PDAs. Worse---these organizations have NO IDEA whose data was even on the mobile devices, so they cannot notify anyone! Makes you feel REALLY safe.
This should be highly relevant to Congress--as it drafts requirements for encrypting data and breach notification.
View Full Article
This should be highly relevant to Congress--as it drafts requirements for encrypting data and breach notification.
View Full Article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
