A recent Frost & Sullivan report that extols the value of mobile technology for healthcare settings missed the mark when it pointed to network level security as the key to wireless health tools’ success.
“While mobile technology undoubtedly adds value to healthcare, the question is whether advances in technology pose a security threat, as information transmitted across a network should be accessible only to authorized users worldwide,” Frost & Sullivan analysts Jayashree Rajagopal and Luke Thomas wrote in a statement. “Their success depends on the network through which information is transmitted,” the analysts concluded.
“The various technologies used for the transmission of information in healthcare include the Public Switched Telephony Network (PSTN), Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), cellular, Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) and Bluetooth. Most organizations choose technologies for different applications based on throughput, quality, cost and security. Among these, security is perceived and understood to be a major concern for all stakeholders involved in the healthcare sector. With the evolution of GSM to 3G, various security features have been enhanced and implemented to protect the integrity of the user.”
The idea that the security of the information rested exclusively on the network technologies struck Mike Foley, executive director of the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG), as an odd assertion.
“Any application that is data based and will be transferring private medical information around isn’t going to rely on the network level security, it’s going to rely on the application level security,” Foley told mobihealthnews.
“We can’t have one security level over the cellular line and then another one over the backhaul,” Foley continued. “It needs to be consistent. The same goes for one level of security for Bluetooth and then another for cellular and so on — it needs to be at the application level to protect that data end-to-end. This idea of network-level security is almost irrelevant as a result.”
While ZDNet’s Dana Blankenhorn cited the perhaps extravagant costs required to quell wireless security paranoia, Foley added that usability might also be sacrificed by overindulging in security.
“Depending on what the wireless technology is and how you do it, adding security to a device might make it so heavy and complicated that no one can use it. I think there is a greater concern for ease-of-use versus security since those two are generally at polar opposites,” Foley said.
“Ease-of-use might be the prohibitive factor here as opposed to cost.”
Read on for the press release from Frost & Sullivan about its report on network-level security for wireless health. Continue >>