Jim Glaspole wrote: > Didn't identify myself - using a new hack into work mail server (SME) > via IMAPS > Apologies > Jim Glaspole > Vemont medical Clinic > > Oliver Frank wrote: >> Andrew McIntyre wrote: >> >>>>> True, but a digitally signed document is a good thing. >>>> >>>> Because...? >>> >>> 1. You know who wrote it >>> 2. You know that is not corrupted >>> 3. You know when it was written >>> 4. You do not need to store a paper copy >>> 5. It actually does allow real paperless communication >> >> The last two points have nothing to do with digital signing. >> >> If I send a referral electronically either as text in an ordinary >> encrypted but not digitally signed email message, or by a messaging >> system such as Medical Objects or Argus but also not digitally signed, >> that looks as if it came from me, sounds as if it came from me, and >> asks for a service that that health professional usually provides, do >> you think that anybody receiving it is likely to question it or to >> suspect corruption of the message? What I am saying is that I believe >> that a digital signature adds little in practical terms in day to day >> use. The only real reason that I see for needing or wanting digital >> signing is to satisfy the letter of the law for Medicare benefits >> purposes. >> >> > >
How can we be confident that it was you who wrote the document. In this case its irrelevant but this is not the case wrt medical communication! Andrew McIntyre (perhaps) _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
