This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here

August 07, 2018 Security Conference Call

From HL7Wiki
Revision as of 05:59, 14 August 2018 by Suzannegw (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to Security Main Page


x Member Name x Member Name x Member Name x Member Name
. John Moehrke Security Co-chair x Kathleen Connor Security Co-chair . Alexander Mense Security Co-chair . Trish Williams Security Co-chair
x Christopher Shawn Security Co-chair x Suzanne Gonzales-Webb x Mike Davis . David Staggs
x Diana Proud-Madruga x Francisco Jauregui . Joe Lamy . Greg Linden
. Rhonna Clark . Grahame Grieve . Johnathan Coleman . [mailto: Matt Blackman, Sequoia]
. Mohammed Jafari x Jim Kretz . Peter Bachman x Dave Silver
x Beth Pumo . Bo Dagnall . Riki Merrick . [mailto: Julie Maas]


  1. (2 min) Roll Call, Agenda Approval
  2. (5 min) Review and Approval of:
  3. (5 min) GDPR whitepaper on FHIR update - Alex, John, Kathleen
  4. (5 min) TF4FA Normative Ballot reconciliation (formerly PSAF) - Mike, Chris
  5. (10 min) PASS Audit post ballot reconciliation document update - Mike
  6. (05 min) TF4FA Trust Framework Volume 3 (placeholder) - Mike, Chris
  7. Is Privacy Obsolete - Mike
  8. (05 min) Placeholder: HL7 WGM Baltimore planning

Back to Security Main Page

Meeting Minutes (DRAFT)

Chair: Chris Shawn

Roll taken, No updates to the agenda

July 17 - meeting minutes approval motion: (Mike / Suzanne) Objections: none; abstentions: none; approve: Minutes approved

July 31 - meeting minutes approval, motion: (Suzanne / Mike)

objections: none; abstentions: none; approve: 11

GDPR whitepaper on FHIR update

  • no update

TF4FA Ballot Reconciliation Suzanne or Chris to send out ballot reconciliation spreadsheet for review by Security WG attendees

  • motion made to approve 11-25 block of dispositions (Kathleen / Mike)

Objections: none; Abstentions none, approval 11

  • please review dispositions 25-41 for next week vote
  • also, attach ballot reconciliation attach documents to meeting invite
  • no additional comments/questions

PASS Audit

  • reconciliation completed, need to complete dispositions to the document
  • Diana indicated completion of most of the 'easy' comments
  • no additional comments/questions

TF4FA Volume 3

  • Dave Silver -
    • we have had osme further clairification of the ocmponents of provenance; we are usisng the features of the PASS Audit services to implement provenance to implenetn capablitys of lifecycle events; using

using aligning r... the needs are to ollet the audit, bu tht euadiot of colelcion is fromt he xxx policy. each of the ose might hae ther own policy of information to be collected and report back to the provenance repository or chain

  • focused on
  • conceptual model showl : leveraging audit service (provenance Model)
    • must be configures to record lifecycle events; goes to the audit disposition service, this is now both audit and provenance. provisioned for provenance. iin process A all the lifecycle events are taken (coded into application) the dispositions servie basedon the xx whdetermine which events need to e configured at a certain time. then goes to delivery service; then to
  • action service probably intermally
  • alarm - wanted to make sure WG understands; there may be provnanc events... some occure wherein we send th eprovenance event and notify participants in that block chain that something has happened. it may be ethat some inforaiton in the chain has been determined to be invalid i.e. … or may... we want to notify participants that even should be ignored; i.e. its harmful to patient if accepted, we found that it was invlad..maybe we have an alarm for that particil… doesn't hurt to keep or remove; just imagining scenarios for keeping it in. ; the ability tos support alam
  • thorught the export service, is extracted from the local provenance reposity then pushed to the community wide

staying away from 'block chain' saying / leaning more toward electronic leger.

<<link to volume 3>> Dave Silver sending to Suzanne s there any specific data being recorded?

  • audit log … using the same machine because they are close
    • provenance log collects data that corresponds to lifecycle events that the community interest want sto store in their electronic leger (25 events defined, 18 of which are create/up--which is what FHIR is most interested in)
    • configure as on/off - when that event happened it tirggers the provenance trail; or audit train (each use the same machine but report different paths); in the case of ht provenance, it typically, there is an interest that connects it tot he e-leger, usually local kept.. provenance different wherein you can have local rules 1-5;

community interests only cares about 2,3,4

jim - how does the actor get recorded? i.e. national provider ID? name mike - this is cocnpetual model th eprovance record has the agent involved in terms of provenance. we're staying at this level and ot specifying conceptual model... just trying to get the big chunks in place the actiit is associated with that agent. we ould have Jim as actor (14706), tryingto tyie together the conceptual figures

Federated Provenance Domain (figure showed)

  • has for all the memebers in the domain, there is a provenance policy (agreed to by the members, implement in the indiciuatl mreains) which is then pused to the digital leger as they occure. Policy gellls members what to coll and pushed down the left path
  • federated user have their own thing whereinthey carn request provenance data from the ledger (nothing to do with pushing infor there) provenance service returns
    • this is mechanism to search in the digital leger
    • its possible in thae exchange of inforaiton itself that th eprovance goes ith it...tht's a differetrocessl The data itsel
  • there esre discussion of dta moving around (JIM)...WITH QUEESTIONS 'who recorded this...?' it would somhow say dr. bob at facility: XYZ
  • md

Q Kathleen... 30:00 MikeD if you are interested in the information - you join the domain. as a conceptual model I don't want too many use cases to explore. what you're saying is logical. what I would like is to have the gropu to present two models... to make sure there is no disagreement with the alarm

  • presenting as we go;

Motion: that we accep the two diagrams as is (if they are changed then we will review again) (Mike / objections: none ; abstain: none ; approve: diagrams as accepted (11) (dave silver to send diagrams as presented to Suzanne), Suzanne to link

a compmelte set of core illustrations saying that the WG has reviewed and approved.

privacy obsolte

  • privacy remains a troubled area (no update)
  • may call an end to research, results may be indeterminate. there isn't a solid definition for privacy (changes from country to country
  • there is greater attention to person information unless govt is collecting
  • GDPR is having a big impact, chaning environment around the world but still much stays the same
  • facebook, are seeting new technologies to market you but not with particular creditnaisl but as a member of a group wherein they don't need to know who you are. its a changing landscape
  • in the chaos its hard to say its bolete, big dta and AI have a potential to make privacy obsolete.
    • forced agreement (wherein you can't get in unless you agree to all their terms

'Baltimore Meeting HL7

  • agenda items being accepted

MOtion made to adjourn (Mike) meeting adjonred at 1242 PM Arizona time --Suzannegw (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2018 (EDT)