This is the most sensible comment in the entire disucssion.
David de Bhal > 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 _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
