this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
488 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

82830 readers
4344 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
488
Federal Cyber Experts Thought Microsoft’s Cloud Was “a Pile of Shit.” They Approved It Anyway. (www.propublica.org)
submitted 2 days ago by Beep@lemmus.org to c/technology@lemmy.world
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
  • “Cloud First”: To move federal agencies to the cloud, the government created a program known as FedRAMP, whose job was to ensure the security of new technology.
  • Security Breakdown: ProPublica found that FedRAMP authorized a Microsoft product called GCC High to handle sensitive government data, despite years of concerns about its security.
  • Potential Conflict of Interest: The government relies, in part, on third-party firms to vet cloud technology, but those firms are hired and paid by the company being assessed.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

What?!? The entire purpose of HIPAA is to put liability on misuse of data. At this point, I have no fucking clue what your point is.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, but you talked about how cloud storage vs on prem is a violation.

Put up or shut up.

Also see my edit about a BAA

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The answer to your question is in the article you posted… did you even read it?

Have a great day, I’m done talking in circles.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm not op, and I've Read the actual law.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Believe it or not I pay attention to usernames. I was talking about the link you just posted that mentions the liability assumed by the signers of the BAA.

Maybe read it again? My job requires me to be HIPAA and FERPA certified, I am confident in my interpretation of the situation.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I'm also required to be compliant.

But how can companies like google have products like

https://cloud.google.com/security/compliance/hipaa

if cloud storage is a violation?

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That's what he's saying, they're in violation. Your comment begs the question "is everything big companies do legal and compliant?"

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Violation of what specifically?

Because HIPAA does not say you cant store data with third parties. That would be every cloud EMR out there.

That's my point though. Is HIPAA says nothing technical about who can store data, just who's responsible for it getting out.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Yes we get your point, you dont get the point that it leaves them liable to regulators defining it and finding themselves out of compliance with the yet to be defined rules

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

There's no legal definition of "yet to be defined" rules. That's not how the US legal system works. You cant define rules after the fact and call someone guilt/in violation of rules that don't exist.

[–] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Maybe you can't but the DoJ does it all the time.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 5 hours ago

And chevron deference is dead.

So its up to judges to determine what the rules are.

Say what you will about the clown courts the US has. But then don't claim that HIPAA matters at all then. Because its only worth the paper it's on sure. But then the entire conversation is moot.

[–] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

Seriously, stop being a troll. I’m done with this conversation. Not one time have I used the word violation.

[–] wholookshere@piefed.blahaj.zone 0 points 2 days ago

Fun fact, the law actually does not lay out a single technical "must do".

But rather establish liabilities and defines miss use. Which is NOT the same as proper use.