Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Being non-proft does not justify being incompet (Score 1) 188

HIPAA *does* set in place specific specifications to comply. The beauty of HIPAA is that the Dept H&HS releases guidance to inform people how to comply on pretty much every aspect:

When it comes to technology, they always refer to NIST standards as being tested and compliant. Read NIST special publication 800-111 and its references to the FIPS 140-2 standard at (Publications / Special Publications on the top menu) and you'll see they have very thorough information on how to implement encryption correctly.

Comment Re:Why Gen Z Needs To Change for Work (Score 2) 443

You are correct that this type of request is common from executive, and that IT bends over backwards to attempt to accommodate it. As the Security Officer of my company, I have a Risk Acceptance form that needs to be signed for this type of situation. It requires a signature by an Officer of the company, and if the requester is an Officer, it requires the CEO's signature. As the Chief Executive, the CEO is authorized to sign his own requests. HOWEVER, all of these forms are provided to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors during each quarterly meeting, so the CEO is very sure that they are "real" requests that he is willing to support and defend. As the Security Officer, I am required to send a Risk Report directly to the Board's audit committee, and if anyone tried to circumvent the risk process, that would be in this report.

I'm fortunate that I have the backing of our executive management for this, but I have worked very hard to develop my relationship with our senior management and board. It helps that our company handles data that is subject to both HIPAA and state privacy laws, and mine is very much a "I am here to keep us all out of hot water and off the front page of newspapers" type of role. And all of our managers are mature enough to know that they are responsible should an exception to the rules end up in a loss to the company, so they are very supportive and cooperative with the controls we've agreed upon as an organization.

The key is cooperation, rather than an us-versus-them mentality between IT, management, and the rest of the business units.

Comment Re:If you are at work (Score 1) 377

The Democrats have crudely blocked the legislative process. The protesters have crudely blocked the Capitol's facilities. Although I don't believe this was an intentional attempt by the Republicans to block access to information, if it was I wouldn't be all that upset given the actions by the opposition. I find it interesting how selective people can be when it comes to what's fair in a conflict.

Comment IE 6 suspect? (Score 1) 398

"With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect."

Well, gs.statcounter has IE6 listed 4th, and only beaten by newer versions of IE and one version of Firefox. My company (not Chase) tracks browsers by type/version, and more than 80% of clients identify themselves as IE6. It would be silly for us not to support IE6, just as I'm sure Chase is basing their decision on similar experience with client data. If alternative browser users want to tinker with their browser identity, they should make sure they're not identifying as IE6, or they're just contributing to the problem of IE6's continued support.

Comment Re:I agree (Score 3, Insightful) 138

I with you on it making sense. Also, if a lawyer feels really great about his chance of a victory and posts that he's about to win his case, the judge would see that update. Then if the judge rules in his favor it gives the appearance that the lawyer received foreknowledge of a ruling. If it doesn't go his way, the judge could be argued to have ruled the other way to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

It's easier to just separate them, because in every court case someone will be unhappy with the outcome and looking for something to blame it on.

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 1006

Actual reasons absolutely do matter. Beyond discrimination, there are other limitations as well, which is why I said it depends on the jurisdictions. Look up "At-will employment" on Wikipedia for an overview, then check your local state's laws. 43 states plus D.C. have exceptions based on public policy, for instance. "At-will" gives flexibility, not total immunity.

Making a reasonable case that a termination had the appearance of retaliation, even if it did not, will usually send the business to the settlement table. Employment rights offices will often require that both sides attempt to address the complaint outside of court. And in this age of "evil company must be punished," no company wants the public to hear that they retaliated against a whistleblower who was trying to bring to light that the company was breaking laws. If the company is public or regulated, it's a nightmare of future auditing, possible sanctions, and opening the door to class-action lawsuits. And any company doesn't want that kind of bad PR.

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 1006

Even if they come up with another reason, it would look like retaliation and they would likely lose in a court case (depending on the state). Some states favor the business, some favor the individual. Also, if you're already on a performance plan or under other disciplinary action for some other causes, retaliation is harder to prove.

But if you're a "good employee" and you're holding evidence that you tried to warn them about licensing issues and they terminate you when auditors show up for licensing confirmation, retaliation is likely enough that a good employment attorney will win the case, and even more likely get the business to settle before it even goes to a case, even in a "at-will employment" state.

Comment Re:It will apply to everyone (Score 1) 101

The commercial whole-disk encryption software we use works at the BIOS-level, rather than from within the OS. You can't mount the disks on a Linux system. Your statement that commercial encryption programs are for peace of mind rather than protection is a false generalization. Well-designed, well-implemented, *and* well-managed (must be all three) systems can provide excellent real protection of data.

Slashdot Top Deals

Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings