Re: [d@DCC] Health privacy and license agreements

From: mskala _-at-_ ansuz.sooke.bc.ca
To: General Discussion <discuss (at) digital-copyright.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 22:43:15 -0500 (EST)

On Thu, 21 Nov 2002, Michael Richardson wrote:
>   It is an argument for not using Windows. There are plenty of additional
> arguments why Windows should be excised from our hospitals - simply put, the
> systems were not secure enough EULA or not, to hold medical data.

Well, my interest was primarily in the license agreement allowing
Microsoft access to the computer; there's a qualitative difference between
"the system might have flaws allowing undesired persons to gain access"
and "the system comes with a built-in legal requirement for unauthorized
persons to be allowed access".  I think the EULA issue will convince some
people who might not believe technical arguments about security flaws.

An open-source platform is preferable in this respect to a non-Windows
non-open-source platform, because the open-source platform is more open to
auditing to make sure it's free of back doors.  (Not that that's
foolproof, of course.)  However, you're right that the EULA issue is
fundamentally an argument *against* Windows (or any other platform with
similar licensing terms) rather than *for* any specific alternative.

Neither of those points are necessarily the *strongest* arguments
available for open source, but I think they're arguments that we haven't
heard much about.
-- 
Matthew Skala
mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca                    Embrace and defend.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/

--
For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see http://www.digital-copyright.ca