This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
<meta name="googlebot" content="noindex">

Difference between revisions of "November 19, 2018 GDPR whitepaper on FHIR call"

From HL7Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 39: Line 39:
  
 
Operations:
 
Operations:
Grahams to define an erasure operation that takes a Patient or Person. It returns rejected. Success. Or partial success.... Is there a need for it to report what it deleted? Or what it didn't?  It does need to report external recipients
+
Graham poposes to define an erasure operation that takes a Patient or Person. It returns rejected. Success. Or partial success.... (question: is there a need for it to report what it deleted? Or what it didn't?  Nevertheless, it does need to report external recipients)
Is it necessary tp report what was deleted?
+
 
Operation for transparency: search on AuditEvents?
+
Is there a need for a Operation for transparency: i.e. a search on AuditEvents?
  
 
Do we need a CapabilityStatement like resource that describes server data retention rules. Possibly useful for client too to state the client need.
 
Do we need a CapabilityStatement like resource that describes server data retention rules. Possibly useful for client too to state the client need.

Revision as of 15:41, 19 November 2018

Back to Security GDPR Page

Attendees

x Member Name x Member Name x Member Name x Member Name
. John Moehrke Security Co-chair . Kathleen Connor Security Co-chair . Alexander Mense Security Co-chair . Trish Williams Security Co-chair
. Christopher Shawn Security Co-chair . David Pyke CBCP Co-Chair . Giorgio Cangioli . Joe Lamy
. Peter van Liesdonk . [mailto: ] . [mailto: ] . [mailto: ]

Back to Security GDPR Page

Agenda

  1. (5 min) Roll Call, Agenda Approval
  2. (10 min) Presentation Proposal "Purpose of Processing" (Peter) (link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rIHhL5FTIFVD9EGgW70SkElfsMH9ofHoDuYnVHMOZF4/edit?usp=sharing)
  3. (20 min) Harmonization discussion - PoU vs. Purpose of Processing
  4. (10 min) Uses cases (Georgio)
  5. (5 min) Reminder - issues from WGM:

Are update events to be reported in a transparency report? Depth of Provenance

Operations: Graham poposes to define an erasure operation that takes a Patient or Person. It returns rejected. Success. Or partial success.... (question: is there a need for it to report what it deleted? Or what it didn't? Nevertheless, it does need to report external recipients)

Is there a need for a Operation for transparency: i.e. a search on AuditEvents?

Do we need a CapabilityStatement like resource that describes server data retention rules. Possibly useful for client too to state the client need.

We might need to address Break-Glass as a healthcare safety mechanism.


Links:

Harmonization proposal:

https://gforge.hl7.org/gf/project/security/docman/Harmonization/Nov%202018%20Harmonization/2018JulyHARM%20Initial%20PROPOSAL%20SECURITY%20v3%20and%20v2%20Table%200717%20Privacy%20Law%20and%20Consent%20Directive%20codes%20v2%20GDPR.doc

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-6-gdpr/

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-9-gdpr/

Link to Confluence page: http://confluence.hl7.org/display/SEC/FHIR+-+GDPR

Meeting Minutes (DRAFT)