Can anyone explain why?
------- Forwarded Message Follows -------
Date: 21 Jul 96 09:23:17 EDT
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Message not deliverable
----------------------------------- Returned -----------------------------------
From: INTERNET:[log in to unmask] at CSERVE
Date: 7/21/96 8:55AM
*To: INTERNET:[log in to unmask] at CSERVE
Subject: Re: Supplier access to confidential patient data
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
============== Begin part 2 ==========================
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Received: from norn.mailbase.ac.uk (norn.mailbase.ac.uk [128.240.226.1]) by
dub-img-3.compuserve.com (8.6.10/5.950515)
id IAA19173; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 08:51:00 -0400
Received: by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id <[log in to unmask]>
(8.6.12/ for mailbase.ac.uk); Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:37:15 +0100
Received: from relay-5.mail.demon.net by norn.mailbase.ac.uk id
<[log in to unmask]>
(8.6.12/ for mailbase.ac.uk) with SMTP; Sun, 21 Jul 1996 13:37:11 +0100
Received: from post.demon.co.uk by relay-5.mail.demon.net id ak21022;
21 Jul 96 13:04 +0100
Received: from bcfp.demon.co.uk ([158.152.115.227]) by relay-3.mail.demon.net
id aa07604; 21 Jul 96 13:02 +0100
From: Colin J Browne <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 12:59:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Supplier access to confidential patient data
Reply-to: Colin Browne <[log in to unmask]>
Priority: normal
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.20)
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
X-List: [log in to unmask]
X-Unsub: To leave, send text 'leave gp-uk'
to [log in to unmask]
Sender: [log in to unmask]
Precedence: list
> I'm not too bothered about the former, as there is little I want to do
> via NHSNet that can't be done via the secure gateways that are to be
> provided.
Does this mean that you could accomplish maintainance via NHSnet and are
suppliers able to become non-NHS organisations on NHSnet. Where are you on
discussions with IMG? It seems clearly crucial that you must have access!
> A threat model that regonised that the threat was primarily from abuse
> by insiders, would lead to a securiry architecture that might as well
> assume that the network was insecure (like the internet) and removes the
> need for over the top border controls. This put locks on internal doors,
> desks and filing cabinets.
How much do the locks cost, who provides them and I suppose who pays for them?
Is not border control an additional protection?
Colin
Colin J Browne The Black Country Family Practice
Queens Rd, Tipton, West Midlands, England
============== End part 2 ============================
Colin J Browne The Black Country Family Practice
Queens Rd, Tipton, West Midlands, England
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|