Re: How many licences does one city need? (Nov. 27)
This is one of the reasons why governments need to consider open source in their IT solution as saving tax payer money should be
the prime directive at all levels.
Lambton Hospitals Group
Re: Radwanski vs. Romanow (Nov. 29)
Radwanski has good points, but he misses the mark by 180 degrees at the very least.
Health care requires access to patient records; insurance companies and other do not. Make the law state this clearly and there are no problems. One should not be discriminated against because of his or her patient record.
Re: Radwanski vs. Romanow (Nov. 29)
I feel that there are at least three fundamental flaws in Romanow’s recommendation for a cross-Canada patient records database:
- Based on its past track record, I have no faith in the Government of Canada honouring any commitment to prevent various departments and agencies of the Government of Canada from gaining access to such records. A current example is the proposal to collect air craft passenger manifests and provide the information to the RCMP, etc. — a clear violation of our so-called “”Rights to Privacy.””
- Such a database is only useful if it is up to date. The probability that all doctor office visit records will be entered into such a database are somewhere between slim and none.
- Regardless of any claims to the contrary, it is absolutely certain that such records will be hacked.
Therefore, I consider such a concept to be both an invasion of privacy and a complete waste of money.
Re: CIPS calls for Lawful Access watchdog (Nov. 27)
While we can laud the position taken, the suggestion that we would appoint a cabinet minister to oversee this activity is a farce. With the past history and record of our current cabinet ministers, from Jane Stewart to our new Ambassador to Denmark, these are not the sort of folks I want in charge.
Re: Termination relationship management (Nov. 27)
Having just been involved in doing this, I think understanding why, on a case-by-case basis, is in order.
The person in question did not have his contract renewed. Under the terms of the contract, there was a 30-day clause for notice. We paid him out his 30-days.
The reasons for not renewing included consistently missing deadlines and milestones, insubordination, gross misuse of company computing facilities for personal use, and, as a minor item, the person did not add required skills to keep up with where the company was going technically even though told to do so (The company pays all tech training.) The above items had been documented over the past year and the person was given three chances to correct the deficient items. He was on notice of termination when his contract was not renewed.
This person was the network administrator, Web master and security officer for the firm. He knew were all the confidential information was stored, all code base(s) for products under development, all client files, etc.
This person was assessed as being a risk to the company if left in his position, and, as such, his contract was not renewed. This was done yesterday at 4 p.m. by the owners of the firm. He was allowed under supervision to delete person data files and was then escorted off the premises. The process of changing all system passwords also began at 4 p.m. and took over an hour to complete. Letters to relevant ISPs and suppliers went out at 4 p.m. as well.
The owners of the firm hope that they have changed all the passwords. They don’t know, however, since the person in question never created a site binder outlining all passwords. They also hope that they can recover from the issues created by this person in his position. It was a difficult decision, not made lightly.
Name withheld by request
Letters to the editor must include the writer’s name and company name along with an e-mail address or other contact information. All letters become the property of ITBusiness.ca. Editors reserve the right to edit submissions for length and content.