Dear Users... (A thread for Sysadmin, Technical Support, and Help Desk people)

[JoeMorgue]

We're still maintaining 9 traditional fax machines and 9 traditional analog phone lines, one for each location, for the sole and only reason that one Doctor refuses to look at scans sent via e-mail.

And yes it doesn't matter that you can send a fax from all sorts of software based solutions. He wants them sent as traditional, analog faxes. He'll ask the nurses and lab techs "Are you faxing this or scanning and it e-mailing it?" and refuse anything that's send using a computer.

I'm not allowed to tell them just to lie to him.

 

[lobosrul5]

USER: Please create the path, "PathName" in Service.

ME: Please confirm you want "PathName" and not "pathname".

USER: Is there a convention I should follow? If not, I'd like "PathName", please.

ME: No convention, but Service path names are case sensitive... Ok, I've created "PathName" and given you permissions to put stuff there.

[Time passes.]

USER: I keep getting a permissions error when I try to store stuff at "pathname". Please make sure you did your job right.

ME: ...

$pathname = lc $pathname;

Always.

 

[CORed]

That's fine and a normal part of the IT process when there is actually a problem.

In my case there was no problem. Neither the computer nor the printer was malfunctioning or working outside normal perimeters. The entire issue was she just kept sending the job to the printer over and over because it wasn't printing (You figure around print job... 30 or so you'd give up) and never once glanced at the printer to see if it need interaction.

30, 78, 5763 ... Everyone has a different threshold for doing the same thing and expecting different results.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Actual event I just had to deal with:

User: All of a sudden I can't print.
Me: Okay let me take a look at it. Okay there's... *pause. Hard blink. Read it again* 78 jobs stuck in the print queue.
User: Print queue?
Me: Errr... stuck at the printer (not about to try and explain what a print server is and how it works at this point.)
User: What does that mean?
Me: It means something's probably wrong at the printer. Where do you print to?
User: Admin Printer at the front desk.
Me: Gotcha be right back.
*As soon as I step into front desk area I am alerted to an odd insensate beeping from a particular printer shape object.
*Looks at Printer* "UNEXPECTED PAPER SIZE. PLEASE PRESS OK TO CONTINUE OR BACK TO CANCEL THE JOB."
Me: How long has this thing been beeping?
Front Desk staff: Oh about 20 minutes now.
Me: I see. *Swallows back the slight stroke I'm having*
*Presses OK. 78 print jobs immediately start spewing out.*

That's why we IT folks get paid the small bucks.

 

[Norman Alexander]

We're still maintaining 9 traditional fax machines and 9 traditional analog phone lines, one for each location, for the sole and only reason that one Doctor refuses to look at scans sent via e-mail.

And yes it doesn't matter that you can send a fax from all sorts of software based solutions. He wants them sent as traditional, analog faxes. He'll ask the nurses and lab techs "Are you faxing this or scanning and it e-mailing it?" and refuse anything that's send using a computer.

I'm not allowed to tell them just to lie to him.

I'm in the same field. Tell him that the old style faxes are much lower quality images than the newer email-based solutions. And consequently he may be missing critical medical details which could endanger his patients (and also his exposure to claims and thus his insurance costs). Chances are he will demand the very best quality images immediately. Say "Yes, sir!" and hook him up to the modern tech.

 

[Wudang]

I'm in the same field. Tell him that the old style faxes are much lower quality images than the newer email-based solutions. And consequently he may be missing critical medical details which could endanger his patients (and also his exposure to claims and thus his insurance costs). Chances are he will demand the very best quality images immediately. Say "Yes, sir!" and hook him up to the modern tech.

At one IBM place I worked in the early 90s an older programmer objected to having her old green screen (IBM 3278) terminal replaced by a PC. Her manager supported her and insisted she be allowed. So he was sent a bill for maintaining the infrastructure from the mainframe channel card and all to her desk. She got a PC.

 

[carlvs]

We're still maintaining 9 traditional fax machines and 9 traditional analog phone lines, one for each location, for the sole and only reason that one Doctor refuses to look at scans sent via e-mail.

And yes it doesn't matter that you can send a fax from all sorts of software based solutions. He wants them sent as traditional, analog faxes. He'll ask the nurses and lab techs "Are you faxing this or scanning and it e-mailing it?" and refuse anything that's send using a computer.

I'm not allowed to tell them just to lie to him.

There are reasons for this, as this Slate article explains:

...

"The medical industry’s longtime preference for fax may have something to do with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which was passed by Congress in 1996. The law required the Department of Health and Human Services to create privacy standards for health information—the ensuing Privacy Rule, which became effective in 2001, required health care providers to take “reasonable safeguards” when sharing patient data between labs, hospitals, specialists, and insurers. A post about the HIPAA Privacy Rule on the HHS website explicitly names fax as an acceptable method of transmission of medical records, test results, instructions, and treatment regimens. According to PC Mag, some interpret the wording of the rule to mean that fax is an acceptably secure medium while email is not. Though electronic mail has come to be a commonly accepted way to send information in most industries, email has been considered too insecure a medium—too susceptible to hacking—for medical records. Fax, meanwhile, is difficult to hack."

...

The article also states that while HIPAA-legal e-mails can be sent, the encryption process for this can be complex. Also, while great strides have been made in converting patients records from paper to digital formats, the same cannot be said for having independent systems communicate with each other.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I just got this delivery of four brand new 24 inch LCD monitors for our research lab.

 

[Hellbound]

I just got this delivery of four brand new 24 inch LCD monitors for our research lab.

Maybe they heard you were doing particle research and were trying to help things along?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well luckily 3 of the 4 monitors were okay (to be fair where fair is due the internal packaging was very, very robust). 4 looked okay but flickered when we tested it for a little bit. It eventually started working fine but given the nature of the box we figured we weren't going to risk it and returned that one.

The Research Lab (Oncology not particle physics ) will survive with 3 new and 1 older monitor for now.

 

[Norman Alexander]

There are reasons for this, as this Slate article explains:



The article also states that while HIPAA-legal e-mails can be sent, the encryption process for this can be complex. Also, while great strides have been made in converting patients records from paper to digital formats, the same cannot be said for having independent systems communicate with each other.

Yep, I've seen the exact same arguments about "fax is secure" being used here in Australia some years back. Until I showed them a few...little problems.

The most basic of which is "wrong number!" It is almost axiomatic that the sender of faxes will get the dialed fax number wrong for any number of reasons. So you might possibly have the unedifying situation where a medical report of some sensitive and uptight person, e.g. a Sultan of a Middle eastern country who had a colonoscopy, being faxed to the previous phone number used on the fax machine, e.g. a local female politician having the same procedure. Hilarity ensues. *participants disguised in this example*

 

[lobosrul5]

Yep, I've seen the exact same arguments about "fax is secure" being used here in Australia some years back. Until I showed them a few...little problems.

The most basic of which is "wrong number!" It is almost axiomatic that the sender of faxes will get the dialed fax number wrong for any number of reasons. So you might possibly have the unedifying situation where a medical report of some sensitive and uptight person, e.g. a Sultan of a Middle eastern country who had a colonoscopy, being faxed to the previous phone number used on the fax machine, e.g. a local female politician having the same procedure. Hilarity ensues. *participants disguised in this example*

I once received a fax with someones photo ID, SSN, and a voided check. New employee packet.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I once received a fax with someones photo ID, SSN, and a voided check. New employee packet.

Score!

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm going to out on a limb here and just assume the AES-256 HIPAA complaint secure e-mail system we have is just a tad more secure than the technology that predates the Civil War.

 

[paulhutch]

Yep, I've seen the exact same arguments about "fax is secure" being used here in Australia some years back. Until I showed them a few...little problems.

The most basic of which is "wrong number!" It is almost axiomatic that the sender of faxes will get the dialed fax number wrong for any number of reasons. So you might possibly have the unedifying situation where a medical report of some sensitive and uptight person, e.g. a Sultan of a Middle eastern country who had a colonoscopy, being faxed to the previous phone number used on the fax machine, e.g. a local female politician having the same procedure. Hilarity ensues. *participants disguised in this example*

See The Games Season 1 Episode 6

From a regulatory stand point there is a huge difference between a person mistakenly sending confidential information to the wrong recipient and the designed security of a technological system. A person making a mistake can happen with either email or fax, so that's a wash. Fax transmission is secure by law, it's a crime to read the data on a POTS line without a warrant unless you are the recipient. With standard email the transmission is not secure and it is legal for every server along the distribution path to read the contents of the email. So without additional security measures the emailed data is not secure.

 

[JoeMorgue]

With standard email the transmission is not secure and it is legal for every server along the distribution path to read the contents of the email. So without additional security measures the emailed data is not secure.

If "standard e-mail" was the only option available you'd have a point.

HIPAA complient secure e-mail solutions are widely available.

Hell the very act of something existing as a physical paper document makes "securing" it impossible in the context we're discussing.

I can tell who wrote, read, was forwarded to a secure e-mail under our system to a degree acceptable in a court of law. With a fax all I can do is "Yeah the fax printed off on a fax machine somewhere and could be in Narnia now for all I know or can prove."

 

[catsmate]

With standard email the transmission is not secure and it is legal for every server along the distribution path to read the contents of the email. So without additional security measures the emailed data is not secure.

A lesson people need to learn.
Not too long ago I started receiving emails (to a personal Gmail account) confidential material intended for a certain staffer (who shares my name) in a certain political party in a country that shall remain nameless. This included PID, etickets for his flights, account details for a loyalty card scheme and more. I repeatedly replied repudiating all connections, but in few cases were these even acknowledged.

Then I got a copy of the itinerary and security overview for the visit of his head of government to a certain location. That's when I contacted the office of the HoS and forwarded them the material, reminding them I was under no duty of confidentiality and that if this happened again I'd forward the material to every media outlet in their country.
I got a grovelling apology.

However I still get personal emails for him and two other namesakes.

 

[malbui]

A lesson people need to learn.
Not too long ago I started receiving emails (to a personal Gmail account) confidential material intended for a certain staffer (who shares my name) in a certain political party in a country that shall remain nameless. This included PID, etickets for his flights, account details for a loyalty card scheme and more. I repeatedly replied repudiating all connections, but in few cases were these even acknowledged.

Then I got a copy of the itinerary and security overview for the visit of his head of government to a certain location. That's when I contacted the office of the HoS and forwarded them the material, reminding them I was under no duty of confidentiality and that if this happened again I'd forward the material to every media outlet in their country.
I got a grovelling apology.

However I still get personal emails for him and two other namesakes.

I have a gmail account of the format firstname.lastname. My full name is not desperately uncommon. I have namesakes in NYC, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, British Columbia, London and Sydney, all of whom are reliably incapable of getting their mail addresses correct in online forms, utilities contracts and, most impressively, CVs.

The amount of confidential personal mail I receive for them is extraordinary.

The lack of response I get when I try to inform people of their errors is deeply depressing.

The difficulty I have in contacting a number of US-based institutions to tell them of the error is astonishing. Numerous places don’t accept contact via mail or twitter; all they offer is a phone number. As I’m in Europe, screw that.

 

[zooterkin]

I have a gmail account of the format firstname.lastname. My full name is not desperately uncommon. I have namesakes in NYC, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, British Columbia, London and Sydney, all of whom are reliably incapable of getting their mail addresses correct in online forms, utilities contracts and, most impressively, CVs.

The amount of confidential personal mail I receive for them is extraordinary.

The lack of response I get when I try to inform people of their errors is deeply depressing.

The difficulty I have in contacting a number of US-based institutions to tell them of the error is astonishing. Numerous places don’t accept contact via mail or twitter; all they offer is a phone number. As I’m in Europe, screw that.

My better half is in a similar position, she keeps getting emails for at least one other person with a similar name on their gmail account, with a similar lack of interest when she notifies the organisations involved of the problem.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I have a gmail account of the format firstname.lastname. My full name is not desperately uncommon. I have namesakes in NYC, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, British Columbia, London and Sydney, all of whom are reliably incapable of getting their mail addresses correct in online forms, utilities contracts and, most impressively, CVs.

The amount of confidential personal mail I receive for them is extraordinary.

The lack of response I get when I try to inform people of their errors is deeply depressing.

The difficulty I have in contacting a number of US-based institutions to tell them of the error is astonishing. Numerous places don’t accept contact via mail or twitter; all they offer is a phone number. As I’m in Europe, screw that.

My wife had an email that was [email protected]. I gave it out to one friend as [email protected] and somehow that spread to a large group of our friends. They used it on evite invitations and would just copy those lists from one get-together to the next. The person who received those evites would reply with some pretty funny replies. She would RSVP for three sometimes, noting that both her boyfriends were in town if that was OK. Or she would RSVP for 50 saying her family was in town and they all really wanted to come. Or she would RSVP and ask who the **** the host was or would there be any decent wine this time. Once she just commented that all of our parties seemed pretty lame.

I found it hilarious. My wife was not amused.