On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, David Forslund wrote: ... > I assume that you mean that you can reduce the risk factor > arbitrarily, which is not really possible, because security is no > better than the weakest link, which is at some point is a human being.
Dave, I agree. One of the things that SDSS can do is to distribute the information so that there will be no single-point of failure for human operators or any component in the information management machinary. ... > I'm confused as to the meaning of SDSS. Keeping them secure after you > do the separation wouldn't seem to me to be within the meaning of the > term you define as SDSS. Once things are separated, it would seem to > me that you simply use normal methods for securing the data, as > separation has been removed from the equation. Good question! It turns out that separating information into sub-parts is easy compared to securing the pieces that result. We have discussed various aspects of this problem many times on this list. For example, how do you link the identifier part with the other part(s)? ... > Obtaining a patent doesn't really mean anything, I'm sorry to say. If the problem is significant and the solution is non-trivial / non-obvious, then maybe a patent is worthy of some respect??? :-) > Publishing something that applies a technology to healthcare is > certainly useful and unrelated to getting a patent. I agree. ... > > > What is unique about the storage of portions of the data? > > > >see below. > > where? The sequential distribution approach for storing the portions of the data in multiple systems. ... > Applying a previous known concept to healthcare should be something > that should be published, but not patented. I agree. However, the SDSS method is not a previous known concept even outside healthcare. Best regards, Andrew --- Andrew P. Ho, M.D. OIO: Open Infrastructure for Outcomes www.TxOutcome.Org
