On Tuesday 13 February 2007 09:45, Greg Twyford wrote: > No-one wants to rock the boat and acknowledge the real costs in getting > this stuff right. Government, college, GP representative bodies, > accreditation bodies all included. It is down to individual GPs, > Division IT staff and tech. support to ensure practices are up for it > security-wise. Matthew Rose at ACT Division blew the whistle with a > practice security study in 2003, which led to action in the form of the > GPCG security project.
I think it is all superfluous bullshit to include specifics in accreditation requirements. What we need is simple legislation that states that you are facing stiff penalties if you have compromised confidentiality by neglecting to apply generally available and generally affordable technology Definition of "generally available and affordable technology" would then be published annually in the "standards". That way, you get a good incentive for implementation (at least after the first few court cases ending in said stiff penalties), but no needless implementation costs (through this accreditation circus). Public trust in the system would increase - a win-win for everybody but the paper shitters. Horst _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
