There seems to be major disengenuousness on behalf of EPIC and Cerner, and some ignorance on behalf of WSJ.
GCP != Google Health, at least for the purposes of patient privacy. If you hold the encryption keys, google can't do anything, or am I wrong in that assumption?
It is fine, and expected, to rule out GCP for storing your own records for competitive reasons (e.g. choosing them would make future Google Health integrations easier). It is also expected, if not quite fine, to try to actively prevent your customers from using GCP.
Cerner seemed happy to play a few rounds of golf with Eric Schmidt regarding using GCP, presumably to try to glean insight into Google Health, while EPIC flat out refused a meeting. Cerner then helpfully provided a misleading quote to the WSJ to help spread FUD.
GCP != Google Health, at least for the purposes of patient privacy. If you hold the encryption keys, google can't do anything, or am I wrong in that assumption?
It is fine, and expected, to rule out GCP for storing your own records for competitive reasons (e.g. choosing them would make future Google Health integrations easier). It is also expected, if not quite fine, to try to actively prevent your customers from using GCP.
Cerner seemed happy to play a few rounds of golf with Eric Schmidt regarding using GCP, presumably to try to glean insight into Google Health, while EPIC flat out refused a meeting. Cerner then helpfully provided a misleading quote to the WSJ to help spread FUD.