Could Chat Transcripts Be Security Minefields?

Written by Evan Schuman
September 2nd, 2010

When Rite-Aid and Walgreens both announced pharmacist chat programs last month, they were the latest chains to try and use chat to get closer to their customers. But, ironically, the preservation of chat discussions of super-sensitive patient medical history may prove a very serious threat to security.

It’s ironic because both chains are taking substantial steps to secure the access to confidential patient data, but neither is specifying steps to protect transcripts of that very same data. Imagine forcing call center employees to comply with all PCI rules regarding not preserving prohibited payment card data and then allowing them to write down all of that data in plain-text files that are then transmitted to consumers (who are unlikely to protect them) and saved in the chain’s files.

Of the two chains, Rite-Aid opted for the more conservative approach to privacy. Rite-Aid’s live chat pharmacists will have no access to patient medical records and will instead only react to what the customer chooses to share during the exchange. But once those customer-shared thoughts are preserved in the chat transcript text file, they can be accessed later.

In the eyes of HIPAA and lawyers for consumers whose data may get accessed, it won’t make much of a difference who said the protected data. They will assume that a retail conversation—in this case, a patient-to-pharmacist conversation—will be protected along with any sensitive medical data.

Walgreens is allowing its pharmacists to access full pharmacy histories for all Walgreens customers, but they’re not supposed to reveal anything until the patient has verified identity by answering questions. (Given that Walgreens current pharmacists have always had access to that kind of nationwide data, it’s not a change. Although that may not be comforting, it’s not a change.) According to Walgreens spokesperson Jim Cohn, the live chat sessions are encrypted. But given that the consumer has to be able to read the answers, it’s unclear how secure those communications could be. Even if we assume, however, that those chats are fully secure, it’s unclear how secure the transcripts of those sessions will be.

Asked about how the chain handles the chat transcripts, Cohn E-mailed: “Any storage of a chat session is for internal use only and is stored separate from patients’ profiles.” That’s good. But what security is placed on those records? If they’re not part of the patient profile, why are they saved?

Are they excluded from system backups? If an intruder searched for the patient’s name, could it be discovered? Or if the system was searched for particular drug names, could it pull up all chat discussions where it was mentioned? How much identifiable data do those chat transcripts contain?

Speaking of identifiable data, those chats are also likely to include the answers to customers’ authentication questions. And if those are the keys to unlocking the full patient history, those pieces of text could be among the most dangerous.

There’s even a risk on the consumer end. The chain sends the consumer the transcript, including all of the aforementioned secret details. What if that copy gets intercepted? The retailer is in a much stronger position, but will consumers argue that the chain had an obligation to better secure that data? This will be a particularly persuasive argument for elderly patients, who are the most natural victims for identity thieves and who tend to trust the pharmacies to protect their information.

What about search engine spiders? Are these chat transcripts protected enough to prevent them from accidentally turning up in a generic Google search? (“Hello, law offices of Sue-Em, Sue-Em and Wynne. May I help you?”)

This reminds me of the call center issues, where representatives take great care to protect payment card data but then read the card numbers aloud to verify. What if a dishonest call center rep is recording anything picked near their cubicle? What if a cyberthief is calling the call center repeatedly and recording those calls, trying to pick up the card numbers being read aloud in the background?

All of the security in the world will be made meaningless by the weak link. If not properly handled, chat transcripts of sensitive discussions might be just that.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.