I presented the
Document Digital Signature profile to the S&I Framework - esMD workgroup. This group is looking for ways to have non-repudiation proof of authorship and are hell-bent on using digital signatures. I am not convinced that they yet have the compelling use-case to overcome the 'costs' that come along with
Document Digital Signatures. These costs are money, but more so they are resources, changes to workflows, and a long-term commitment. It is this long-term commitment that usually stops most projects short.
My presentation leveraged much of the things that I have blogged about.
YES. The esMD use-case has gone on record this week indicating that they don't want to manage identities, they want to pill-on the NSTIC and FICAM. This can also be seen as them recognizing that identity is the hard part and they would love if someone else took the responsibility. It would be wonderful if this happened, but it still is HARD WORK.
ReplyDeleteOne of the differences is that these are professional identities that are going to be used for dealing with the USA federal government. Thus they have less need to be not-federally issued. Thus they are closer to FICAM than NSTIC.
See my blog: http://healthcaresecprivacy.blogspot.com/2012/07/trusted-identity-of-physicians-in.html
Well whatever people say about it. Personally I believe that digital and electronic signatures made the life easier. It reduces the paper cost so it it cheap secure and faster. What else people looking for??
ReplyDeleteIts my personal perception, people can disagree from it.
Thanks
The problem with Digital signature software is that they need business process and culture change before implementing the system totally.
ReplyDelete