Security, Privacy, and Confidentiality Issues On The Internet
Security, Privacy, and Confidentiality Issues On The Internet
on the Internet
Abstract
We introduce the issues around protecting information about patients and related data sent via the
Internet. We begin by reviewing three concepts necessary to any discussion about data security in
a healthcare environment: privacy, confidentiality, and consent. We are giving some advice on
how to protect local data. Authentication and privacy of e-mail via encryption is offered by
Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) and Secure Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME). The
de facto Internet standard for encrypting Web-based information interchanges is Secure Sockets
Layer (SSL), more recently known as Transport Layer Security or TLS. There is a public key
infrastructure process to `sign' a message whereby the private key of an individual can be used to
`hash' the message. This can then be verified against the sender's public key. This ensures the
data's authenticity and origin without conferring privacy, and is called a `digital signature'. The
best protection against viruses is not opening e-mails from unknown sources or those containing
unusual message headers.
Keywords: Access to Information, Computer Security, Confidentiality, Data
Collection, Information Services, Informed consent, Internet, Organizational Policy,
Privacy
Privacy
`Privacy' is a vaguely defined term that, in an online context, includes the right of an individual
to:
Send and receive e-mail messages or other data (e.g. credit card numbers)
that will not be intercepted or read by persons other than the intended
recipient(s). Encryption (discussed below) is one way of ensuring this.
The ethical duty of confidentiality is defined by the British Medical Association as `the principle
of keeping secure and secret from others, information given by or about an individual in the
course of a professional relationship' [1]. In the UK the legal duty of confidentiality is
underpinned by the Data Protection Act (1998), regulating the processing of information (`data')
that could lead to the identification of individuals--including its collection, storage, and
disclosure [2]. To ensure the protection of confidentiality in an electronic environment the
General Medical Council (GMC) recommends that doctors should [3]:
Consent
`Consent' for our purposes is the means by which we are authorized by an individual to process
information about them based on their informed understanding of what we intend.To include
identifiable patient information in an e-mail message or on a Web site in the absence of a
patient's express consent would constitute a breach of confidentiality. Obtaining consent should
involve making the patient aware of any risks to his or her privacy and the arrangements in place
to protect it. Identifiable patient information could therefore be transmitted via the Internet with
the informed consent of the patient, and with regard for the advice of the GMC (or equivalent
professional body) and established principles such as those of Caldicott (see Box 2) and the Data
Protection Act (see Box 3).
Caldicott Principles
accurate
secure
Linking computers together means that you can access other people's data, but it inevitably
follows that this allows others to access data on your own system. Until such time as individual
computers or networks are linked together they resemble `islands' of electronic data. Security on
a data island is simple: reassuringly firm borders trap all unauthorized entrants. However, when
you build bridges by creating a network link this approach on its own is inadequate. When a
computer connects to the Internet, it loses its island status by compromising the integrity of its
`borders'. Any potential benefits of connecting must be weighed against the risks to your own
data. In a healthcare environment, this data is often of a highly sensitive nature. Even connecting
a home computer may expose data, such as banking details, which you would prefer to remain
private.
Closed systems: the intranet
Why connect in such an open way? Why not restrict the connection to `friends' only? In other
words, why don't we connect only to trusted computers over trusted network links, thus
extending our own trusted computing base? Enter the intranet. Intranets are suited to smaller
organizations with enforced security policies and strict personnel control--something not always
attainable within a large health service.They are by nature restrictive, as security through
exclusion conflicts with the potential of a network to enhance medical communications in a
connected world. Intranets may provide a false sense of security: as the electronic thief attacks
the weakest link in the chain, security measures must reflect this. A properly secured intranet
therefore demands such things as locked rooms for terminals, physiological checks for terminal
access, and armoured, pressurized cables to detect cable tapping.
Virtual private networks
Blurring the divide between public and private networks, a virtual private network (VPN) uses a
`tunnelling protocol' and encryption (see below) to send private data through public networks
such as the Internet. Although communicating parties do not need to invest in a private network
infrastructure, they have no control over the network used and no guaranteed standard of
service.The lack of interoperable implementations has been the main impediment to the
deployment of VPNs to date [6].
Firewalls
Just as you wouldn't allow anybody to listen in to your telephone conversation, so you need to
care for your Web browsing sessions and e-mail exchanges. For this purpose you need a firewall,
designed to prevent damage to your system.These software or hardware devices operate by
recognizing the IP address that a message or system query comes from, and only allowing past
those that are recognized as `good' or trusted. With the advent of higher-risk `always on' Internet
connections, firewall solutions of varying complexity are readily obtainable.
Go to:
Using a public/private key pair to encrypt messages helps ensure protection during
transit
In use, this is easier than it sounds, and confers integrity (the data haven't been manipulated),
authenticity (the identity of the sender is known), nonrepudiation (the data can't be disowned)
and privacy on the data. Any attempt to interfere or damage the contents messes up the
mathematics, and the message becomes unintelligible, thus warning the recipient not to trust it.
Provided the verification of the identity of the key-holders is carried out in a dictatorial fashion,
the origin authentication of the message is also assured. If only Alice knows the private phrase
key to make an exchange work, then only Alice can have sent the message.
Authentication and privacy of e-mail via encryption is offered by Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) and
Secure Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (S/MIME), both proposed Internet standards.
Browser encryption
As we move towards a browser-accessible type of electronic patient record there will arise a need
to protect the exchange of data from leakage and attack. A precedent has been set by the
widespread practice of Internet banking and commerce, which out of necessity involves
transmitting confidential information. The de facto Internet standard for encrypting Web-based
information interchanges is Secure Sockets Layer (SSL), more recently known as Transport
Layer Security or TLS [7]. SSL/TLS can also be used to encrypt e-mail messages. It uses a
symmetrical one-time electronic key that works between the browser and the server for as long
as the connection is open. When the session ends, the encryption dies with it, and thus it depends
largely on its length of key structure and short time of operation for its safety. SSL/TLS is more
demanding on server resources than non-encrypted connections, so secured Web pages are often
slow to display.
Assurance of identity (authentication) on the Web presently requires the use of a certificate
supplied by a third party Certificate Authority, such as VeriSign Inc.: http://www.verisign.com/
UK readers should note that the NHS has its own cryptography strategy:
http://www.doh.gov.uk/nhsexipu/strategy/crypto/index.htm
Go to:
Receiving data
Digital signatures
There is a simpler PKI process using the same algorithms referred to above to `sign' a message
whereby the private key of an individual can be used to `hash' the message.This can then be
verified against the sender's public key. This ensures the data's authenticity and origin without
conferring privacy, and is called a `digital signature'.The process is illustrated in Fig. 2. In the
UK the Electronic Communications Act 2000 provides the legal framework for the recognition
of digital signatures [8].
Viruses are small segments of code that have been inserted into computer files, often with
malicious intent. An infected file may cause annoyance or the loss of data. In theory, any file you
download from the Internet is a potential vector. Viruses may also be present in files attached to
e-mail messages (but cannot be transmitted via a text-only e-mail itself ). There are a number of
antiviral programs available (some are free) that will screen for and help you neutralize infected
files on your computer-- before they are activated or have a chance to `replicate'. Some viruses
are activated when you use an infected program; others merely require you to view an infected
document.Antiviral programs act like the body's immune system in that they are always on the
lookout for `foreign' material--in this case, foreign program code. However, even if your
software is regularly updated it won't catch all viruses (especially new ones). Security should be
based on the sound sense of not opening e-mails from unknown sources or those containing
unusual message headers.
Go to:
Conclusions
The protection of personal data in a connected world defaults not so much to high-tech
applications or hardware, as to careful management of staff and relatively common techniques to
ensure the simple, frequent risks are catered for. The determined criminal or government agency
will get access somehow, but what matters to doctors is making sure that we take care of the data
we collect about patients in a manner appropriate to the twenty-first century.
Go to:
Acknowledgments
This paper was originally published as a book chapter, in: Bruce c. McKenzie (ed.). Medicine
and the Internet, Third Edition Oxford University Publishing, 2002 http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/019-851063-2 Reprinted with kind permission of the publisher.
Go to:
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest:
None declared.
Go to:
References
1. British Medical Association (UK), authors Confidentiality and disclosure of health
information. 1999. Oct, [2001 Apr 19].
http://web.bma.org.uk/public/ethics.nsf/webguidelinesvw?openview.
2. Her Majesty's Stationery Office (UK), authors The Data Protection Act (1998)
1998. [2001 Apr 19]. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980029.htm.
3. General Medical Council (UK), authors Confidentiality: Protecting and Providing
Information. 2000. Sep, [2001 Apr 19]. http://www.gmc-uk.org/standards/secret.htm.
4. NHS Executive's Security and Data Protection Programme, authors. Ensuring
security and confidentiality in NHS organisations (E5501 v1.1) 1999. [2001 Sep 22].
http://194.101.83.13/library/cards/c0000365.htm.
5. British Standards Institution (UK), authors BS ISO/IEC 17799:2000 (BS 77991:2000) Information technology: code of practice for information security
management. London: BSI; 2000. http://www.bsi-global.com/
6. Gleeson B, Lin A, Heinanen J, Armitage G, Malis A. A framework for IP based
virtual private networks (RFC 2764) 2000. Feb, [2001 Jun 5]. http://www.rfceditor.org/
7. Dierks T, Allen C. The TLS protocol (RFC 2246) 1999. Jan, [2001 Jun 5].
http://www.rfc-editor.org/
8. Her Majesty's Stationery Office (UK), authors The Electronic Communications Act
(2000) 2000. [2001 Jun 5]. http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000007.htm.
Articles from Journal of Medical Internet Research are provided here courtesy of
Gunther Eysenbach