Last week, the NSTIC program office held the first of three outreach workshops. While a who’s who of the identerati (along with government and trade group representatives) discussed what kind of governance body NSTIC requires, there were a variety of productive hallway conversations. I was involved in once such conversation in which a well-respected chief security officer of a large identity company half-joked, “What we need to do is re-write HIPAA, word replacing it to talk about identity.” Not being the blogging type, this security officer said I ought to take this idea and run with it. Here goes nothing…
The Identity Portability and Accountability Act (IPAA) of 2011
Whereas identity is foundational to all transactions (financial, informational, etc.) on the interwebs, identity is poorly defined and protected by law. The Identity Portability and Accountability Act of 2011 seeks to:
- Describe a minimal set of attributes deemed to be identifying
- Establish the legal standing of identity and attribute providers
- Define minimum standards for the protection of identity information
- Codify individual’s rights with respect to their identity information
Whereas Congress has spent an enormous amount of time regarding portability and accountability of health information (and given that it is also almost the summer and who on earth wants to stick around DC in July and debate), this body shall simply word-replace the current contents of 45 CFR Parts 160, 162, and 164 to form IPAA. IPAA shall draw upon HIPAA’s two Rules: Security (45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and C of Part 164) and Privacy (45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and E of Part 164). The following substitutions shall be made:
|HIPAA term||IPAA term|
|Health care provider||Attribute provider|
|Health care clearinghouse||Identity provider|
|Business associate||Relying party|
|Protected health information (PHI)||Identity information (II)|
Whereas, after word-replacing as described above, the language within IPAA seems to still resemble English (at least as much as any bill resembles English), this body shall describe the rights and standing of identity and attribute providers…
And so on. There is some usefulness in such a ridiculous endeavor. Instead of discussing what happens when identity and identifying information is disclosed (a la a breach notification law), why not codify a minimal set of identity information and some basic rules of the road for identity and attribute providers. (If we are to have a thriving identity ecosystem as NSTIC hopes, I believe we are going to need some rule-making for identity and attribute providers, akin to credit agencies). Using HIPAA’s Privacy and Security rules as models, Congress could establish some basic data handling rules for such information, including safe harbor for the use of data encryption and relationship context metadata (my report on this will be release shortly). Most importantly, such a law could describe what rights people have to identity information about them. Following the recent rule changes to HIPAA, one could imagine that, by law, each of us could ask our IDPs for a log of both identity data use as well as disclosure.
I know that the security officer who gave me the idea for this post was only half kidding. But the other half isn’t a bad idea.
It is seven weeks to Catalyst. Seven weeks to great sessions, productive hallway conversations (like the one that spawned this post), and ample opportunities to network with peers. Relevant to this post, we have:
- Deb Gallagher, chair of the Federal Identity and Credential Access Management (FICAM) sub-committee, discussing the governments role in identity assurance
- Me discussing relationship context metadata and protecting privacy by using data labels
If you’ve got a half-joking, half-brilliant idea, bring it to San Diego, schedule a 1-on-1 with an analyst, and see where the discussion leads.