ISO/IEC 40210:2011 Information Technology

By IT ADMIN ISO/IEC 40210:2011 Information Technology

ISO/IEC 40210:2011 pertains to information technology and specifically defines a standardized method for digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM). This standard focuses on communication protocols and data formats for managing and transmitting medical images and associated information. It facilitates interoperability between different medical imaging systems and software, ensuring that images and information can be shared seamlessly across healthcare providers.

Would you like to know more specific details about this standard?

What is required ISO/IEC 40210:2011 Information Technology

ISO/IEC 40210:2011 defines the requirements for digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) used in the field of information technology for healthcare. Here are the key components and requirements of this standard:

1. Interoperability

  • Ensures that medical imaging devices, software, and systems can exchange images and related data seamlessly.
  • Facilitates the integration of different devices, such as MRI, CT scans, and ultrasound machines, with hospital information systems and radiology information systems.

2. Data Formats

  • Specifies the format for encoding and transmitting medical images, which includes various types of image modalities (e.g., X-ray, MRI).
  • Ensures the standardization of image metadata such as patient information, study descriptions, and device characteristics.

3. Communication Protocols

  • Defines how devices communicate over networks to share images and diagnostic information.
  • Provides detailed specifications on how to transmit images using networking standards such as TCP/IP for healthcare applications.

4. Security

  • Addresses the need for secure transmission of patient data and medical images to protect privacy and confidentiality.
  • May include encryption and access control measures to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive medical information.

5. Compliance with Healthcare Standards

  • Ensures that systems comply with international healthcare regulations and standards, such as HIPAA in the U.S., which governs the privacy and security of patient information.

6. Error Handling and Reliability

  • Specifies error-checking mechanisms to ensure that images are transmitted accurately without loss or corruption.
  • Includes methods for retrying transmissions in the event of network failures or interruptions.

These requirements aim to ensure that medical imaging systems can communicate efficiently, share information accurately, and operate securely within the healthcare environment.

If you need more detailed technical specifications, I can assist with that as well.

Who is required ISO/IEC 40210:2011 Information Technology

ISO/IEC 40210:2011 is primarily required by organizations and professionals involved in the creation, management, and use of medical imaging systems and data within the healthcare industry. The following stakeholders are typically required to adhere to this standard:

1. Healthcare Providers

  • Hospitals and Clinics: To ensure the smooth exchange of medical images (e.g., X-rays, MRIs) between departments or institutions.
  • Radiology Departments: To standardize the transmission and storage of medical images.
  • Medical Professionals: Doctors and radiologists rely on the accurate and interoperable sharing of imaging data for diagnostics and treatment planning.

2. Medical Device Manufacturers

  • Manufacturers of Imaging Equipment: Companies producing medical imaging devices (e.g., CT scanners, ultrasound machines, X-ray machines) must implement DICOM standards for interoperability.
  • PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication Systems) Providers: Systems that store and transmit medical images must comply with this standard to ensure compatibility with other systems.

3. Healthcare IT Solution Providers

  • Software Developers: Developers of healthcare information systems (e.g., radiology information systems, electronic health records) must ensure that their software can handle medical images in the DICOM format.
  • Health Information Exchange Platforms: Providers of solutions for the exchange of medical records and images between healthcare institutions need to comply with this standard.

4. System Integrators

  • IT Consultants and System Integrators: Companies and professionals responsible for integrating different imaging devices and software systems must ensure that all components adhere to the DICOM standard for interoperability.

5. Regulatory Bodies

  • Healthcare Regulators: Government and international bodies that oversee healthcare standards and compliance may require the implementation of ISO/IEC 40210:2011 to ensure secure, accurate, and reliable exchange of medical images.

6. Health Insurance Providers

  • To ensure proper communication and sharing of patient medical imaging records in cases involving diagnosis, treatment validation, and claims processing.

7. Academic and Research Institutions

  • Medical Research Centers: Use standardized imaging data for research and development in medical imaging technologies and techniques.

In short, any entity that deals with medical imaging, from equipment manufacturers to healthcare facilities, must ensure their systems comply with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 to maintain interoperability and secure, standardized communication of medical imaging data.

When is required ISO/IEC 40210:2011 Information Technology

ISO/IEC 40210:2011 is required in several key situations where medical imaging data is used, exchanged, and managed within the healthcare sector. Here are some specific instances when the standard is necessary:

1. When Implementing Medical Imaging Systems

  • New Installations of Imaging Equipment: When hospitals, clinics, or diagnostic centers purchase or install new imaging devices (e.g., CT, MRI, ultrasound machines), compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 ensures that these devices can communicate and share data with other systems.
  • Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS): Required when setting up PACS for storing, retrieving, and managing medical images across healthcare facilities.

2. When Upgrading or Integrating Systems

  • System Upgrades: When updating existing medical imaging systems or software, the standard ensures compatibility with newer systems and maintains interoperability with other healthcare platforms.
  • Integration of Systems: When integrating different systems, such as connecting radiology information systems (RIS) with hospital information systems (HIS), the standard ensures smooth and standardized communication of medical images.

3. When Transmitting Medical Images

  • Telemedicine: In situations where medical images need to be transmitted over networks (e.g., for remote diagnosis or consultations), the standard provides the necessary framework for secure and efficient image transmission.
  • Cross-Institutional Sharing: When medical images need to be shared between different healthcare facilities, labs, or specialists, ISO/IEC 40210:2011 ensures that images and associated data are transmitted correctly and can be read by all systems involved.

4. When Developing or Certifying Medical Imaging Devices

  • Medical Device Development: Manufacturers of imaging equipment are required to adhere to the standard to ensure that their products are interoperable with other DICOM-compliant systems.
  • Certification of Devices: Devices that are certified for use in the healthcare sector must comply with this standard to meet industry regulations and international requirements for the communication of medical images.

5. When Ensuring Data Security and Patient Privacy

  • Compliance with Privacy Laws: The standard is required in situations where patient data security is critical, such as complying with laws like HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in the U.S.) that govern the transmission and storage of patient health information, including medical images.
  • Secure Image Transmission: Ensuring the secure and encrypted transfer of sensitive medical images between systems to protect against data breaches.

6. During Medical Research and Data Exchange

  • Clinical Research: When medical images are used in research, compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 ensures that data is in a standardized format, making it easier to share and analyze across multiple institutions and research platforms.

7. When Meeting Regulatory and Industry Requirements

  • Regulatory Compliance: Healthcare providers and manufacturers are required to adhere to this standard to meet national and international regulatory requirements regarding medical device interoperability and data handling.
  • Industry Certifications: Achieving certifications or accreditations related to healthcare IT often requires compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 to prove the ability to handle medical images effectively and securely.

8. When Implementing Health Information Exchange (HIE) Systems

  • National and Regional Health Networks: In large-scale health information exchange platforms that enable data and image sharing across hospitals and healthcare providers, compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 is required for ensuring that medical images are transmitted in a standardized, interoperable format.

In summary, ISO/IEC 40210:2011 is required when dealing with medical imaging systems, whether for installation, upgrades, data sharing, compliance with regulations, or ensuring system interoperability across healthcare platforms.

Where is required ISO/IEC 40210:2011 Information Technology

ISO/IEC 40210:2011 is required in a variety of healthcare and medical settings globally, wherever medical imaging systems and data are involved. Here are some specific locations and contexts where this standard is necessary:

1. Hospitals and Clinics

  • Radiology Departments: In hospitals and diagnostic centers that handle medical imaging (e.g., X-rays, MRIs, CT scans), this standard is required to ensure that imaging devices, software, and systems can communicate effectively.
  • Medical Imaging Centers: Independent imaging centers or diagnostic laboratories require the standard to ensure compatibility with hospital information systems and radiology information systems.

2. Medical Device Manufacturers

  • Manufacturing Facilities: Companies that produce medical imaging equipment (e.g., ultrasound, MRI, or CT machines) must adhere to the standard in their development processes to ensure their products are interoperable with other healthcare systems worldwide.
  • Software Development Firms: Companies that create healthcare IT systems, such as PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication Systems), electronic health records (EHR), and telemedicine platforms, need to comply with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 to ensure their products can manage and share medical imaging data.

3. Telemedicine Platforms

  • Remote Diagnostic Centers: For facilities providing telemedicine services, where medical images need to be transmitted securely over networks for remote diagnosis, this standard is crucial to ensure image quality and interoperability.
  • Rural and Remote Healthcare Facilities: In areas with limited access to healthcare, telemedicine relies on standardized medical image transmission, and compliance with this standard is necessary.

4. Health Information Exchange (HIE) Systems

  • Regional and National Health Networks: Large-scale health information exchanges that connect multiple healthcare providers require ISO/IEC 40210:2011 to ensure that medical images can be shared across institutions in a standard, interoperable format.
  • Cross-Border Healthcare Systems: In international healthcare collaborations, where patient data, including medical images, is exchanged across borders, this standard ensures uniformity and compatibility of the transmitted data.

5. Research and Academic Institutions

  • Medical Research Centers: In research facilities and universities, where clinical research involving medical imaging is conducted, compliance with this standard allows the sharing of imaging data across different systems, aiding research on disease diagnosis and treatment.
  • Educational Institutions: Medical schools and healthcare IT education programs may require adherence to this standard to train students on how to manage and transmit medical imaging data in a clinical setting.

6. Health Insurance and Claims Processing

  • Insurance Providers: For health insurance companies that need access to medical images for claims processing and treatment validation, ISO/IEC 40210:2011 ensures that images and associated metadata are shared securely and in a standardized format.

7. Regulatory Agencies

  • National and International Healthcare Regulatory Bodies: Government agencies responsible for healthcare standards and compliance, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the European Medicines Agency (EMA), may require medical devices and systems to adhere to this standard to ensure they meet legal and safety requirements for managing medical imaging data.
  • Accreditation Organizations: Bodies that provide healthcare certifications (e.g., Joint Commission International, or JCI) may require hospitals and diagnostic facilities to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 as part of their accreditation processes.

8. Pharmaceutical and Biotech Companies

  • Clinical Trials: When pharmaceutical or biotech companies conduct clinical trials that involve imaging data, they must ensure that the imaging equipment and data exchange processes comply with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 to guarantee data quality and consistency.

9. Emergency and Military Healthcare Systems

  • Field Hospitals and Mobile Units: In military or disaster-relief healthcare setups, where portable imaging devices are used, compliance with this standard ensures that images can be transmitted and interpreted across different platforms.
  • Emergency Response Networks: Hospitals and emergency medical services that coordinate patient care may require this standard to ensure that imaging data is shared securely and effectively during emergencies.

10. International Healthcare Collaborations

  • Cross-Border Healthcare Initiatives: In collaborative healthcare programs between countries, where medical data, including images, must be shared for diagnosis and treatment, this standard is essential to ensure interoperability.
  • Global Health Organizations: International health organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) may require ISO/IEC 40210:2011 in their projects that involve the exchange of medical imaging data globally.

In summary, ISO/IEC 40210:2011 is required wherever medical images are created, transmitted, or managed, whether in hospitals, imaging centers, telemedicine platforms, research institutions, regulatory bodies, or cross-border healthcare systems. It ensures secure, accurate, and standardized communication of medical imaging data in these diverse settings.

How is required ISO/IEC 40210:2011 Information Technology

ISO/IEC 40210:2011, related to medical imaging and communication, is required through various implementation methods, compliance strategies, and regulatory processes to ensure interoperability and security in healthcare systems. Here’s how organizations and stakeholders are expected to comply with this standard:

1. Implementation in Medical Imaging Systems

  • Integration of DICOM Standards: Medical imaging devices, such as MRI, CT, and X-ray machines, must be built to support DICOM (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine), the primary protocol defined by ISO/IEC 40210:2011. This includes implementing the data formats, communication protocols, and metadata structure outlined in the standard.
  • Software Compliance: Healthcare IT systems, such as Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS), Radiology Information Systems (RIS), and Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems, must be designed or upgraded to handle medical images according to the DICOM format, ensuring they can interact with other compliant systems.

2. Healthcare Provider Compliance

  • Adoption by Hospitals and Clinics: Healthcare institutions need to adopt equipment and software that comply with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 to ensure seamless communication between departments and across different organizations. This includes using compatible imaging systems, archiving solutions, and secure transmission protocols.
  • Training of Medical Staff: Healthcare providers, such as radiologists and IT staff, must be trained to use systems that adhere to ISO/IEC 40210:2011. Proper training ensures that medical professionals can operate equipment, retrieve and interpret images, and troubleshoot issues according to the standard.

3. Device and Software Certification

  • Medical Device Certification: Manufacturers of imaging devices (e.g., ultrasound, CT scanners, etc.) must undergo product certification to ensure their devices comply with ISO/IEC 40210:2011. This ensures the device’s interoperability with other compliant systems.
  • Software Validation: Developers of healthcare information systems and telemedicine solutions must validate their software to ensure they support the DICOM format for medical images, ensuring compatibility with imaging devices and PACS systems.

4. System Integration and Interoperability

  • Interoperability Testing: Healthcare organizations must conduct interoperability testing to ensure that their various medical systems—imaging equipment, archiving systems, hospital information systems, etc.—can work together seamlessly using the protocols outlined in ISO/IEC 40210:2011.
  • System Upgrades and Maintenance: Compliance with this standard requires ongoing maintenance and periodic upgrades to ensure that all components of the healthcare IT infrastructure—both hardware and software—remain compliant as technology evolves.

5. Data Security and Privacy

  • Encryption and Secure Transmission: ISO/IEC 40210:2011 requires that medical images and related patient data are transmitted securely. This includes the implementation of encryption and secure transmission protocols (e.g., HTTPS, SSL) to protect patient privacy and meet regulatory standards like HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) or GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation).
  • Access Control: The standard requires strict access control to ensure that only authorized personnel can view, manipulate, or transmit sensitive medical images. This could include password protections, two-factor authentication, and role-based access management.

6. Regulatory Compliance

  • National and International Regulations: Compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 is often required by regulatory bodies that govern the healthcare industry, such as the U.S. FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), and others. These organizations may mandate the standard as part of their certification and approval processes for medical devices and healthcare IT systems.
  • Legal Compliance: Many regions require healthcare organizations to follow international standards, including ISO/IEC 40210:2011, to ensure that patient imaging data is handled securely and interoperably in accordance with national healthcare laws.

7. Procurement of Medical Equipment

  • Vendor Compliance: When healthcare facilities are purchasing new imaging systems or IT solutions, they need to ensure that vendors are offering ISO/IEC 40210:2011-compliant products. This is necessary to guarantee that all systems will function together without data loss or incompatibility issues.
  • Tender and Contracts: Healthcare organizations may include ISO/IEC 40210:2011 compliance as a requirement in contracts and tenders to ensure that all purchased equipment and software meet the required standards for interoperability and data exchange.

8. Periodic Audits and Reviews

  • Internal and External Audits: Healthcare facilities and medical device manufacturers may be required to conduct regular audits to ensure ongoing compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011. Audits help ensure that systems remain interoperable and that medical images are securely handled.
  • Certification Renewals: Periodic renewals of certifications (for devices, systems, or facilities) may require re-validation of compliance with the latest version of ISO/IEC 40210:2011.

9. Cross-Institutional Collaboration

  • Data Exchange Across Healthcare Providers: When medical images are shared between healthcare institutions (e.g., during patient transfers or specialist consultations), ISO/IEC 40210:2011 compliance is necessary to ensure that images are transmitted and interpreted correctly between different systems.
  • Global Health Initiatives: In international health collaborations, particularly in global telemedicine initiatives, compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 ensures that images exchanged between different countries’ healthcare systems are interoperable and secure.

10. Support for Telemedicine

  • Remote Diagnostic Tools: In telemedicine, where medical professionals may need to view or interpret images remotely, ISO/IEC 40210:2011 compliance ensures that images are transmitted efficiently and securely between remote locations, enabling accurate diagnostics and patient care.

In summary, ISO/IEC 40210:2011 compliance involves implementing DICOM standards across medical imaging systems, ensuring interoperability, maintaining data security, and adhering to legal and regulatory requirements. This standard applies across various healthcare organizations, device manufacturers, and software providers to ensure the accurate, secure, and efficient management and transmission of medical imaging data.

Case Study on ISO/IEC 40210:2011 Information Technology

Case Study: Implementation of ISO/IEC 40210:2011 in a Healthcare Network for Enhanced Medical Imaging Interoperability

Background

The Healthcare Solutions Network (HSN) is a regional healthcare system with several hospitals and clinics spread across a metropolitan area. Each facility provides diagnostic services, including medical imaging like X-rays, MRIs, CT scans, and ultrasound. However, HSN faced significant challenges with interoperability, as different facilities used various medical imaging equipment and systems from multiple vendors, leading to data silos and communication issues.

The existing imaging systems couldn’t seamlessly communicate or share medical images, causing delays in patient care, especially in cases requiring urgent specialist consultations or patient transfers between facilities. HSN decided to implement ISO/IEC 40210:2011, a standard that specifies requirements for digital imaging and communication in medicine (DICOM) for medical imaging, to resolve these issues and improve overall patient care.

Challenges Faced Before Implementation

  1. Incompatibility of Imaging Systems: Hospitals and diagnostic centers in the network were using a wide range of imaging systems from different manufacturers, leading to incompatible data formats and protocols.
  2. Fragmented Patient Records: Patient imaging data was stored in isolated systems at each facility, making it difficult for doctors to access comprehensive patient histories across the network.
  3. Delays in Diagnosis: When transferring patients between facilities, imaging data had to be physically transported or re-acquired, resulting in time delays and redundant imaging, which increased costs.
  4. Data Security and Privacy Concerns: Inconsistent security protocols across different systems raised concerns about patient data privacy and compliance with healthcare regulations like HIPAA.

Objective

The goal of implementing ISO/IEC 40210:2011 was to achieve seamless interoperability between all imaging systems in the HSN network, enabling efficient and secure sharing of medical images across all facilities. This would improve the speed of diagnosis and treatment, reduce operational costs, and ensure compliance with healthcare regulations.

Steps Taken for Implementation

  1. Assessment and Vendor Collaboration
    • HSN conducted a comprehensive review of its existing medical imaging infrastructure, identifying gaps in DICOM compliance across its various systems.
    • The team worked closely with all major medical device vendors and healthcare IT providers to ensure that all systems would be upgraded or replaced to be compliant with ISO/IEC 40210:2011, ensuring full support for DICOM standards.
  2. Standardization of Imaging Systems
    • HSN implemented DICOM-compliant medical imaging equipment across all its hospitals and clinics, ensuring that all devices used the same standardized protocol for creating, transmitting, and archiving medical images.
    • Existing imaging systems were upgraded with software patches to ensure ISO/IEC 40210:2011 compliance without having to replace expensive equipment where possible.
  3. Interoperability Testing
    • Rigorous interoperability testing was conducted between various systems in the network to ensure seamless exchange of medical images. This involved testing the ability to share images across different facilities without data loss or degradation of image quality.
    • A PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) that was fully compliant with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 was implemented across all facilities to centralize image storage and retrieval.
  4. Training and Education
    • Radiologists, technicians, and IT staff were trained on the new DICOM-compliant systems. Training included how to store, transmit, and retrieve medical images across the network efficiently, ensuring that staff could fully leverage the new capabilities.
  5. Data Security and Privacy Measures
    • ISO/IEC 40210:2011-compliant encryption protocols were implemented to ensure that images were transmitted securely between systems and facilities.
    • Role-based access control was put in place to restrict access to sensitive patient data, ensuring that only authorized personnel could view or modify medical images.
  6. Compliance and Monitoring
    • Regular audits were conducted to ensure continued compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 and other healthcare regulations such as HIPAA and GDPR.
    • A monitoring system was established to track image exchange and identify any potential issues with data integrity or system downtime.

Results of the Implementation

  1. Improved Interoperability: After the implementation, all imaging systems across the HSN network were able to communicate seamlessly. This allowed for instant access to medical images, regardless of where they were acquired, eliminating the need for redundant imaging and reducing diagnostic delays.
  2. Enhanced Patient Care: Doctors and radiologists could now access comprehensive patient imaging histories in real-time, enabling quicker and more accurate diagnoses. The ability to consult with specialists at other facilities without having to transport physical copies of imaging data dramatically reduced the time taken to make clinical decisions.
  3. Cost Savings: The elimination of redundant imaging reduced operational costs for HSN. Furthermore, streamlined workflows and improved system interoperability meant that staff could focus more on patient care rather than dealing with technical issues.
  4. Data Security Compliance: With ISO/IEC 40210:2011-compliant encryption and security protocols in place, HSN achieved full compliance with HIPAA and other regional regulations, ensuring that patient data was securely transmitted and stored.
  5. Reduction in Image Transfer Times: The time taken to transfer medical images between facilities reduced from hours (in some cases) to just minutes. This was particularly beneficial in urgent cases such as trauma or stroke, where time is critical.
  6. Scalability for Future Expansion: The standardized, DICOM-compliant system provided a scalable infrastructure that would allow HSN to integrate new facilities into the network without compatibility issues.

Conclusion

The implementation of ISO/IEC 40210:2011 at the Healthcare Solutions Network proved to be a transformative step in improving interoperability and patient care. By adopting a standardized approach to medical imaging systems and ensuring compliance across the entire network, HSN achieved significant improvements in operational efficiency, patient outcomes, and data security.

This case demonstrates how ISO/IEC 40210:2011 can play a critical role in overcoming the challenges of fragmented healthcare systems, ensuring seamless communication, and enhancing the overall quality of care. The success of this initiative highlights the importance of adhering to international standards for medical imaging in today’s interconnected healthcare environment.

White Paper on ISO/IEC 40210:2011 Information Technology

White Paper: Implementing ISO/IEC 40210:2011 for Interoperability in Medical Imaging Systems

Introduction

In the healthcare industry, the seamless exchange and secure handling of medical images are critical to enhancing patient care. Medical imaging, a cornerstone of modern diagnostics, requires consistent standards to ensure interoperability between different systems and vendors. ISO/IEC 40210:2011 is an international standard that governs the Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) protocol, designed to standardize the storage, exchange, and retrieval of medical images. This white paper explores the significance of ISO/IEC 40210:2011, its implementation process, and its benefits for healthcare providers and IT vendors.

Overview of ISO/IEC 40210:2011

ISO/IEC 40210:2011 defines a framework for DICOM standards, focusing on ensuring compatibility between different medical imaging devices, software applications, and healthcare information systems. DICOM plays a crucial role in radiology, cardiology, and other fields that rely on high-quality images for diagnostics and treatment.

Key Features of ISO/IEC 40210:2011:
  • Data Format Standardization: Establishes a uniform format for storing medical images and associated data, allowing consistent retrieval and display across different systems.
  • Communication Protocols: Specifies how imaging devices communicate with storage and display systems, ensuring smooth interoperability within and across healthcare institutions.
  • Metadata Support: Defines the structure for metadata, such as patient details, imaging techniques, and clinical reports, to be included with each medical image for better record management.
  • Security and Privacy: Offers guidelines on how to securely transmit and store sensitive medical data, safeguarding patient privacy and meeting regulatory requirements.

Importance of ISO/IEC 40210:2011 in Healthcare

With the growing reliance on medical imaging, ISO/IEC 40210:2011 provides a standardized approach to resolving key issues in healthcare:

  1. Interoperability: Different imaging equipment manufacturers use their proprietary systems, which often results in data silos and incompatibility. ISO/IEC 40210:2011 ensures that all systems can exchange data seamlessly, regardless of the manufacturer.
  2. Improved Patient Care: Access to comprehensive imaging data across departments and facilities improves diagnosis accuracy and speed, reducing redundant tests and treatment delays.
  3. Cost Efficiency: The standard minimizes the need for multiple imaging devices by making it easier to integrate existing equipment into a unified system, reducing costs for healthcare providers.
  4. Regulatory Compliance: Healthcare regulations, such as the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in the U.S. and General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, require secure handling of patient data. ISO/IEC 40210:2011 ensures that medical images are transmitted and stored securely, helping organizations meet these requirements.
  5. Future-Proofing: ISO/IEC 40210:2011 offers a scalable framework for future healthcare advancements, enabling easier integration of new technologies like AI-driven diagnostics and telemedicine.

Implementation of ISO/IEC 40210:2011

Adopting ISO/IEC 40210:2011 requires strategic planning, system upgrades, and compliance checks. The following steps outline a typical implementation process:

  1. Initial Assessment:
    • Healthcare providers should conduct an audit of existing medical imaging systems to determine their current level of compliance with DICOM standards.
    • Identify any gaps in compatibility or communication issues between different systems and vendors.
  2. Vendor Collaboration:
    • Engage with equipment manufacturers and software vendors to ensure that all imaging systems and applications comply with ISO/IEC 40210:2011.
    • Collaborate with vendors to upgrade existing systems or acquire new, compliant devices and software.
  3. System Integration and Testing:
    • Implement DICOM-compliant Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) to centralize the storage, retrieval, and management of medical images.
    • Conduct rigorous testing to ensure interoperability between all imaging systems, including cross-facility image transfer and retrieval.
  4. Training and Education:
    • Train radiologists, technicians, and IT staff on the new DICOM-compliant systems, ensuring they can efficiently handle, transfer, and analyze medical images.
  5. Security and Privacy Protocols:
    • Implement encryption and secure communication protocols for transmitting and storing medical images, as outlined by ISO/IEC 40210:2011.
    • Ensure role-based access control (RBAC) is in place to protect patient data and limit access to authorized personnel only.
  6. Ongoing Compliance and Audits:
    • Establish procedures for ongoing monitoring and auditing to ensure continued compliance with ISO/IEC 40210:2011 and relevant healthcare regulations.

Case Study: Regional Healthcare Network Implementation

Healthcare Solutions Network (HSN), a regional healthcare system, faced challenges related to fragmented imaging systems across multiple hospitals and diagnostic centers. HSN implemented ISO/IEC 40210:2011 to standardize imaging protocols and improve interoperability between different facilities.

Results:
  • Interoperability Achieved: All systems were upgraded to support DICOM protocols, allowing seamless sharing of images between facilities.
  • Reduced Diagnosis Time: Faster access to patient imaging records across different locations led to quicker diagnosis and treatment, particularly in urgent cases.
  • Cost Savings: HSN reduced operational costs by eliminating the need for redundant imaging and streamlining data management processes.
  • Compliance: The network achieved full compliance with HIPAA, ensuring patient data security and privacy across its system.

Benefits of Implementing ISO/IEC 40210:2011

  1. Standardized Medical Image Management: The DICOM protocol standardizes the format, storage, and exchange of medical images, ensuring that all healthcare providers can easily access and use these critical diagnostic tools.
  2. Enhanced Patient Care: Seamless access to imaging data across multiple departments and facilities reduces diagnosis delays, especially in emergency situations where timely information is essential.
  3. Cost Efficiency: By eliminating redundant systems and improving communication between different devices, healthcare organizations can optimize their technology investments and reduce overhead costs.
  4. Security and Privacy Compliance: The standard includes guidelines for secure image transmission and storage, reducing the risk of data breaches and ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements.
  5. Scalability for Future Technologies: ISO/IEC 40210:2011 provides a framework that can be easily expanded to accommodate new imaging technologies, AI-driven diagnostic tools, and telemedicine platforms.

Challenges in Adoption

While ISO/IEC 40210:2011 offers substantial benefits, healthcare organizations may face challenges during implementation:

  • System Upgrades: Some healthcare providers may need to upgrade or replace older systems to ensure compliance, which can be a significant investment.
  • Training and Change Management: Staff across multiple departments will require training on new systems and workflows, which may temporarily affect operational efficiency.
  • Vendor Coordination: Ensuring compatibility between multiple vendors can be complex, requiring close collaboration to ensure all devices and systems meet the standard.

Conclusion

ISO/IEC 40210:2011 represents a critical standard for ensuring the interoperability and security of medical imaging systems. By adopting this standard, healthcare providers can streamline medical imaging processes, enhance patient care, and achieve regulatory compliance. Although implementation can present challenges, the long-term benefits—improved efficiency, cost savings, and enhanced care quality—far outweigh the initial hurdles.

With healthcare systems increasingly reliant on accurate, timely data, adopting ISO/IEC 40210:2011 is not only a technical necessity but also a strategic investment in the future of patient care.

References

  • ISO/IEC 40210:2011, “Information technology – Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM).” International Organization for Standardization (ISO), 2011.
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, “HIPAA Compliance for Medical Imaging,” 2015.
  • European Commission, “General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Overview,” 2016.

This white paper serves as an introduction to ISO/IEC 40210:2011 and is intended to provide healthcare administrators, IT professionals, and medical imaging specialists with a detailed understanding of how this standard can transform their operations and improve patient outcomes.

  1. “Definition of Interoperability”. dedicated website for a Definition of Interoperability at interoperability-definition.info. Copyright AFUL under CC BY-SA. Archived from the original on 2017-03-14. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
  2. ^ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY: 1990.
  3. ^ Slater, T. (2012). “What is Interoperability?”. Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium. Archived from the original on 2014-07-14.
  4. ^ Slater, T. “Cross-Domain Interoperability”[usurped], Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium – NCOIC[usurped], 2013
  5. ^ Vercruysse, Kim; Dawson, David A.; Wright, Nigel (2019). “Interoperability: A conceptual framework to bridge the gap between multifunctional and multisystem urban flood management”. Journal of Flood Risk Management. 12 (S2): e12535. Bibcode:2019JFRM…12E2535V. doi:10.1111/jfr3.12535. ISSN 1753-318X.
  6. ^ Fenner, Richard; o’Donnell, Emily; Ahilan, Sangaralingam; Dawson, David; Kapetas, Leon; Krivtsov, Vladimir; Ncube, Sikhululekile; Vercruysse, Kim (2019), “Achieving Urban Flood Resilience in an Uncertain Future”, Water, 11 (5): 1082, doi:10.3390/w11051082, hdl:10871/37244
  7. ^ “Urban Flood Resilience”. www.urbanfloodresilience.ac.uk. Retrieved 2019-05-15.
  8. ^ NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, NATO AAP-06[permanent dead link]
  9. ^ Interoperability: A continuing Challenge in Coalition Air Operations – Chapter 2 “A broad Definition of Interoperability”, by Myron Hura, Gary McLeod, James Schneider and others, RAND Monograph Report, 2000, [1] Archived 2013-10-19 at the Wayback Machine
  10. ^ Allen, D. K., Karanasios, S., & Norman, A. (2013). Information sharing and interoperability: the case of major incident management. European Journal of Information Systems, 10.1057/ejis.2013.8.
  11. ^ Baldini, G. (2010). Report of the workshop on “Interoperable communications for Safety and Security”. Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen.
  12. ^ “Interoperability system bridges communications gap”. FireRescue1. Archived from the original on 2017-02-02. Retrieved 2017-01-25.
  13. ^ Grier, Robin. “Interoperability Solutions”. Interoperability. Catalyst Communications. Retrieved 28 May 2011.
  14. ^ “FATPOT Technologies”. Archived from the original on 2018-07-10. Retrieved 2019-09-08.
  15. ^ “SIEC”. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  16. ^ “SAFECOM – Homeland Security”. Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  17. ^ “Apple opposes EU plans to make common charger port for all devices”. The Guardian. 23 September 2021. Retrieved 19 October 2021.
  18. ^ Peltier, Elian (23 September 2021). “In a setback for Apple, the European Union seeks a common charger for all phones”. The New York Times. Retrieved 19 October 2021.
  19. ^ “One common charging solution for all”. Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs – European Commission. 5 July 2016. Retrieved 19 October 2021.
  20. ^ Open Search Environments: The Free Alternative to Commercial Search Services
  21. ^ Gordon and Hernandez (2016-05-16). The Official Guide to the SSCP Book. SYBEX. ISBN 978-1119278634.
  22. ^ SC36 Secretariat (2003-11-13). “Proposed Draft Technical Report for: ISO/IEC xxxxx, Information technology — Learning, education, and training — Management and delivery — Specification and use of extensions and profiles” (PDF). ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-11-29. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  23. ^ “Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration”. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  24. ^ “OSLC (Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration): open standard for i…”. 30 November 2011. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  25. ^ 9. Java and JVM Interoperability [Book].
  26. ^ Thomas, Ben (5 March 2013). “Invalid Files and Language Learning: Your Brain’s Interoperable World”. Huffington Post. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  27. ^ Bandoim, Lana. “Unified Interoperability as the Alternative to Big Data Costs?”. Yahoo! Voices. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  28. ^ Jump up to:a b Moran, Andrew. “Tech leaders collaborate, unite over unified interoperability”. Digital Journal. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  29. ^ “Next Generation Data Interoperability: It’s all About the Metadata” (PDF). Whitemarsh Information Systems Corporation. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  30. ^ “Interoperability: What Is It and Why Should I Want It?”. Ariadne. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  31. ^ MP Gallaher; AC O’Connor; JL Dettbarn, Jr.; LT Gilday (August 2004). Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry (PDF) (Report). National Institute of Standards and Technology. p. iv. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-02-04. Retrieved 2012-04-19.
  32. ^ “e-Government Interoperability A comparative analysis of 30 countries” (PDF). CS Transform. 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  33. ^ CIMIT – Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology – the MD PnP Program on Medical Device Interoperability
  34. ^ “RAPS Preview: FDA CDRH Director Shuren Talks Priorities”. September 19, 2016. Retrieved April 8, 2017.
  35. ^ Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Federal Standard 1037C. General Services Administration. Archived from the original on 2022-01-22. (in support of MIL-STD-188).
  36. ^ Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. United States Department of Defense.
  37. ^ Eastman, Charles M., and Eastman, Chuck (2008) BIM handbook: a guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors John Wiley & Sons, pp.72-73.
  38. ^ “European Land Information Service”. Archived from the original on 2008-03-31. Retrieved 2008-10-19.
  39. ^ Design, Erskine. “Welcome – EULIS”. Archived from the original on 17 September 2016. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  40. ^ “European Interoperability Framework (EIF)”.
  41. ^ IoT Semantic Interoperability: Research Challenges, Best Practices, Recommendations and Next Steps (PDF), European Research Cluster on the Internet of Things, March 2015
  42. ^ Morris, KC; Kulvatunyou, Serm; Frechette, Simon; Lubell, Josh; Goyal, Puja (December 2004). “XML Schema Validation Process for CORE.GOV” (PDF). Manufacturing Systems Integration Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 13 June 2023.
  43. ^ NIEMOpen
  44.   Wells, John C. (2008). Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3rd ed.). Longman. ISBN 978-1-4058-8118-0.
  45. ^ Jones, Daniel (2011). Roach, Peter; Setter, Jane; Esling, John (eds.). Cambridge English Pronouncing Dictionary (18th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-15255-6.
  46. ^ “privacy (n.)”, Etymology Dictionary, November 17, 2020, retrieved November 18, 2020
  47. ^ Alibeigi, Ali; Munir, Abu Bakar; Karim, Md. Ershadul (2019). “Right to Privacy, A Complicated Concept to Review”. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3537968. ISSN 1556-5068.
  48. ^ DeCew, Judith (2015), “Privacy”, in Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2015 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 2024-03-21
  49. ^ “oremus Bible Browser : Ecclesiasticus 29:21”. bible.oremus.org. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
  50. ^ Hayat, Muhammad Aslam (June 2007). “Privacy and Islam: From the Quran to data protection in Pakistan”. Information & Communications Technology Law. 16 (2): 137–148. doi:10.1080/13600830701532043. ISSN 1360-0834.
  51. ^ Konvitz, Milton R. (1966). “Privacy and the Law: A Philosophical Prelude”. Law and Contemporary Problems. 31 (2): 272–280. doi:10.2307/1190671. ISSN 0023-9186. JSTOR 1190671.
  52. ^ Longfellow, Erica (2006). “Public, Private, and the Household in Early Seventeenth-Century England”. Journal of British Studies. 45 (2): 313–334. doi:10.1086/499790. ISSN 0021-9371. JSTOR 10.1086/499790.
  53. ^ Negley, Glenn (1966). “Philosophical Views on the Value of Privacy”. Law and Contemporary Problems. 31 (2): 319–325. doi:10.2307/1190674. ISSN 0023-9186. JSTOR 1190674.
  54. ^ Central Works of Philosophy: The Nineteenth Century. McGill-Queen’s University Press. 2005. ISBN 978-0-7735-3052-2. JSTOR j.cttq4963.
  55. ^ Jump up to:a b Solove, Daniel J. (2006). “A Taxonomy of Privacy”. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 154 (3): 477–564. doi:10.2307/40041279. ISSN 0041-9907. JSTOR 40041279.
  56. ^ “4 Harvard Law Review 193 (1890)”. Groups.csail.mit.edu. 1996-05-18. Retrieved 2019-08-22.
  57. ^ Information Privacy, Official Reference for the Certified Information privacy Professional (CIPP), Swire, 2007
  58. ^ “Nineteen Eighty-four | Summary, Characters, Analysis, & Facts”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2021-09-27.
  59. ^ Leetaru, Kalev. “As Orwell’s 1984 Turns 70 It Predicted Much Of Today’s Surveillance Society”. Forbes. Retrieved 2021-09-27.
  60. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i Solove 2010, pp. 3–4.
  61. ^ “Alan Westin is the father of modern data privacy law”. Osano. 2020-07-24. Retrieved 2021-09-28.
  62. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Silicon Valley is Listening to Your Most Intimate Moments”. Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg Businessweek. 2019-12-11. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
  63. ^ “United States v. Jones”. Oyez. Retrieved 2021-09-27.
  64. ^ “Riley v. California”. Oyez. Retrieved 2021-09-27.
  65. ^ “Carpenter v. United States”. Oyez. Retrieved 2021-09-27.
  66. ^ “17 disturbing things Snowden has taught us (so far)”. The World from PRX. 30 July 2016. Retrieved 2021-09-28.
  67. ^ “Privacy vs Security: A pointless false dichotomy?”. Archived from the original on 2023-01-31.
  68. ^ Ari Ezra Waldman (2021). “One Book in One Page”. Industry Unbound: The Inside Story of Privacy, Data, and Corporate Power. Cambridge University Press. p. x. doi:10.1017/9781108591386. ISBN 978-1-108-49242-3.
  69. ^ “The Little-Known Data Broker Industry Is Spending Big Bucks Lobbying Congress”. April 2021. Archived from the original on 2023-04-22.
  70. ^ Jump up to:a b c “The Web Means the End of Forgetting”. The New York Times. 2010-07-25. Archived from the original on 2019-03-10.
  71. ^ Cofone, Ignacio (2023). The Privacy Fallacy: Harm and Power in the Information Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108995443.
  72. ^ Cofone, Ignacio (2023). The Privacy Fallacy: Harm and Power in the Information Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108995443.
  73. ^ “Privacy”. Electronic Frontier Foundation.
  74. ^ “Legislative Reform”. Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.
  75. ^ Ben Tarnoff (2022). “Preface: Among the Eels”. Internet for the People: The Fight for Our Digital Future. Verso Books. pp. 8–9. ISBN 978-1-83976-202-4.
  76. ^ “Fighting Identity Theft with the Red Flags Rule: A How-To Guide for Business”. Federal Trade Commission. 2013-05-02. Retrieved 2021-09-28.
  77. ^ Tiku, Nitasha. “How Europe’s New Privacy Law Will Change the Web, and More”. Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2021-10-26.
  78. ^ “Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (“COPPA”)”. Federal Trade Commission. 2013-07-25. Retrieved 2021-09-28.
  79. ^ “Fair Credit Reporting Act”. Federal Trade Commission. 19 July 2013. Retrieved 2023-06-18.
  80. ^ “Facebook: active users worldwide”. Statista. Retrieved 2020-10-11.
  81. ^ Hugl, Ulrike (2011), “Reviewing Person’s Value of Privacy of Online Social Networking,” Internet Research, 21(4), in press, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?issn=1066-2243&volume=21&issue=4&articleid=1926600&show=abstract Archived 2014-03-28 at the Wayback Machine
  82. ^ Kosinski, Michal; Stillwell, D.; Graepel, T. (2013). “Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110 (15): 5802–5805. Bibcode:2013PNAS..110.5802K. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218772110. PMC 3625324. PMID 23479631.
  83. ^ “Self-portraits and social media: The rise of the ‘selfie'”. BBC News. 2013-06-07. Retrieved 2021-03-17.
  84. ^ Giroux, Henry A. (2015-05-04). “Selfie Culture in the Age of Corporate and State Surveillance”. Third Text. 29 (3): 155–164. doi:10.1080/09528822.2015.1082339. ISSN 0952-8822. S2CID 146571563.
  85. ^ Dhir, Amandeep; Torsheim, Torbjørn; Pallesen, Ståle; Andreassen, Cecilie S. (2017). “Do Online Privacy Concerns Predict Selfie Behavior among Adolescents, Young Adults and Adults?”. Frontiers in Psychology. 8: 815. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00815. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 5440591. PMID 28588530.
  86. ^ CTVNews.ca Staff (October 14, 2012). “In wake of Amanda Todd suicide, MPs to debate anti-bullying motion”. CTV News. Archived from the original on October 29, 2013. Retrieved October 17, 2012.
  87. ^ Boutilier, Alex (April 13, 2014). “Amanda Todd’s mother raises concerns about cyberbullying bill: Families of cyberbullying victims want legislation, but some have concerns about warrantless access to Canadians personal data”. www.thestar.com. Archived from the original on October 28, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
  88. ^ Todd, Carol (May 14, 2014). “Carol Todd’s Testimony regarding Bill C-13”. www.openparliament.ca. Archived from the original on September 18, 2016. Retrieved September 12, 2016.
  89. ^ “Real-Name Online Registration to Be Scrapped”. The Chosun Ilbo. Archived from the original on 2023-04-23.
  90. ^ Empirical analysis of online anonymity and user behaviors: the impact of real name policy. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (45th ed.). IEEE Computer Society. 2012.
  91. ^ “Law, Policies and Regulations”. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
  92. ^ “Florida Anti-Bullying Laws and Policies”. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 2023-06-19.
  93. ^ de Montjoye, Yves-Alexandre; César A. Hidalgo; Michel Verleysen; Vincent D. Blondel (March 25, 2013). “Unique in the Crowd: The privacy bounds of human mobility”. Scientific Reports. 3: 1376. Bibcode:2013NatSR…3.1376D. doi:10.1038/srep01376. PMC 3607247. PMID 23524645.
  94. ^ Athanasios S. Voulodimos and Charalampos Z. Patrikakis, “Quantifying Privacy in Terms of Entropy for Context Aware Services”, special issue of the Identity in the Information Society journal, “Identity Management in Grid and SOA”, Springer, vol. 2, no 2, December 2009
  95. ^ Whittaker, Zack (Aug 22, 2017). “AccuWeather caught sending user location data – even when location sharing is off”. ZDNet. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  96. ^ Kirk, Jeremy (March 20, 2017). “McShame: McDonald’s API Leaks Data for 2.2 Million Users”. BankInfoSecurity. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  97. ^ Popkin, Helen A.S., “Government officials want answers to secret iPhone tracking”. MSNBC, “Technolog”, April 21, 2011
  98. ^ Keizer, Gregg (2011-04-21). “Apple faces questions from Congress about iPhone tracking”. Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2019-07-20.
  99. ^ Keizer, Gregg (2011-04-27). “Apple denies tracking iPhone users, but promises changes”. Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2023-03-29.
  100. ^ Jump up to:a b “Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief” (PDF). The Superior Court of the State of Arizona In and For the County of Maricopa. 2021-06-03. Retrieved 2021-06-03.
  101. ^ “Global Digital Ad Spending 2019”. Insider Intelligence. Retrieved 2023-09-30.
  102. ^ Jump up to:a b Chen, Brian X. (2021-09-16). “The Battle for Digital Privacy Is Reshaping the Internet”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  103. ^ Hausfeld (2024-05-16). “Privacy by default, abuse by design: EU competition concerns about Apple’s new app tracking policy”. Hausfeld (in German). Retrieved 2024-06-28.
  104. ^ “Google Facing Fresh E.U. Inquiry Over Ad Technology”. The New York Times. 2021-06-22. Archived from the original on 2023-04-15.
  105. ^ “EFF technologist cites Google “breach of trust” on FLoC; key ad-tech change agent departs IAB Tech Lab”. Information Trust Exchange Governing Association. Retrieved April 16, 2021.
  106. ^ “Google’s FLoC Is a Terrible Idea”. Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2021-03-03.
  107. ^ Kosinski, Michal; Stillwell, D.; Graepel, T. (2013). “Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110 (15): 5802–5805. Bibcode:2013PNAS..110.5802K. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218772110. PMC 3625324. PMID 23479631.
  108. ^ “The Italian Constitution” (PDF). The official website of the Presidency of the Italian Republic. Archived from the original on 2016-11-27.
  109. ^ Solove 2010, p. 3.
  110. ^ Quinn, Michael J. (2009). Ethics for the Information Age. Pearson Addison Wesley. ISBN 978-0-321-53685-3.
  111. ^ “Privacy Guidelines”. OECD. Retrieved 2019-08-22.
  112. ^ Cate, Fred H.; Collen, Peter; Mayer-Schönberger, Viktor. Data Protection Principles for the 21st Century. Revising the 1980 OECD Guidelines (PDF) (Report). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-12-31. Retrieved 2019-02-01.
  113. ^ Jensen, Carlos (2004). Privacy policies as decision-making tools: an evaluation of online privacy notices. CHI.
  114. ^ “The Privacy Act”. Home. 10 March 2023.
  115. ^ “For Your Information”. Alrc.gov.au. 2008-08-12. Retrieved 2019-08-22.
  116. ^ Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012.
  117. ^ Branch, Legislative Services (2023-09-01). “Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Privacy Act”. laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
  118. ^ Power, Michael (2020). Access to Information and Privacy. LexisNexis Canada Inc. pp. HAP-51.
  119. ^ Branch, Legislative Services (2019-06-21). “Consolidated federal laws of Canada, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act”. laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2024-03-21.
  120. ^ Jump up to:a b Power, Michael (2020). Access to Information and Privacy. LexisNexis Canada Inc. pp. HAP-81.
  121. ^ Cofone, Ignacio (2020). “Policy Proposals for PIPEDA Reform to Address Artificial Intelligence”. Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
  122. ^ Cofone, Ignacio (2021). Class Actions in Privacy Law. Routledge.
  123. ^ Jones v. Tsige, 2012 ONCA 32 (CanLII), online: https://canlii.ca/t/fpnld.
  124. ^ Branch, Legislative Services (2020-08-07). “Consolidated federal laws of Canada, THE CONSTITUTION ACTS, 1867 to 1982”. laws-lois.justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
  125. ^ Penney, Steven; Rondinelli, Vincenzo; James, Stribopoulos (2013). Criminal Procedure in Canada. LexisNexis Canada Inc. pp. 143–77.
  126. ^ “- Civil Code of Québec”. www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
  127. ^ “- Charter of human rights and freedoms”. www.legisquebec.gouv.qc.ca. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
  128. ^ Zhong, Guorong (2019). “E-Commerce Consumer Privacy Protection Based on Differential Privacy”. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 1168 (3): 032084. Bibcode:2019JPhCS1168c2084Z. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1168/3/032084. S2CID 169731837.
  129. ^ Burghardt, Buchmann, Böhm, Kühling, Sivridis A Study on the Lack of Enforcement of Data Protection Acts Proceedings of the 3rd int. conference on e-democracy, 2009.
  130. ^ Mark Scott (3 December 2014). “French Official Campaigns to Make ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Global”. nytimes. Retrieved 14 April 2018.
  131. ^ “What Happens When a Billion Identities Are Digitized?”. Yale Insights. 27 March 2020. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  132. ^ Masiero, Silvia (2018-09-24). “Explaining Trust in Large Biometric Infrastructures: A Critical Realist Case Study of India’s Aadhaar Project”. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries. 84 (6): e12053. doi:10.1002/isd2.12053.
  133. ^ McCarthy, Julie (2017-08-24). “Indian Supreme Court Declares Privacy A Fundamental Right”. NPR. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  134. ^ Saberin, Zeenat. “India’s top court upholds validity of biometric ID card”. www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  135. ^ Does Beckham judgment change rules?, from BBC News (retrieved 27 April 2005).
  136. ^ “Personal Information Toolkit” Archived 2009-01-03 at the Wayback Machine Information Commissioner’s Office, UK
  137. ^ DeCew, Judith (2015-01-01). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Privacy (Spring 2015 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  138. ^ “Fourth Amendment”. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2021-03-20.
  139. ^ “DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION”. LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
  140. ^ Frias, Lauren. “What is Griswold v. Connecticut? How access to contraception and other privacy rights could be at risk after SCOTUS overturned Roe v. Wade”. Business Insider. Retrieved 2022-06-25.
  141. ^ “The Privacy Act”. Freedom of Information Act. US Department of State. 2015-05-22. Archived from the original on 2015-08-10. Retrieved 2015-11-19.
  142. ^ Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.
  143. ^ Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
  144. ^ “Visit to the United States of America”.
  145. ^ Nissenbaum, Helen (2009). Privacy in Context Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0804772891.
  146. ^ Jump up to:a b c Solove 2010, pp. 15–17.
  147. ^ Warren and Brandeis, “The Right To Privacy”(1890) 4 Harvard Law Review 193
  148. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Solove 2010, p. 19.
  149. ^ Godkin, E.L. (December 1880). “Libel and its Legal Remedy”. Atlantic Monthly. 46 (278): 729–739.
  150. ^ Oulasvirta, Antti; Suomalainen, Tiia; Hamari, Juho; Lampinen, Airi; Karvonen, Kristiina (2014). “Transparency of Intentions Decreases Privacy Concerns in Ubiquitous Surveillance”. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 17 (10): 633–638. doi:10.1089/cyber.2013.0585. PMID 25226054.
  151. ^ Gavison, Ruth (1980). “Privacy and the Limits of Law”. Yale Law Journal. 89 (3): 421–471. doi:10.2307/795891. JSTOR 795891.
  152. ^ Bok, Sissela (1989). Secrets : on the ethics of concealment and revelation (Vintage Books ed.). New York: Vintage Books. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0-679-72473-5.
  153. ^ Solove 2010, p. 24.
  154. ^ The quotation is from Alan Westin.Westin, Alan F.; Blom-Cooper, Louis (1970). Privacy and freedom. London: Bodley Head. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-370-01325-1.
  155. ^ “Predicting Data that People Refuse to Disclose; How Data Mining Predictions Challenge Informational Self-Determination”. openaccess.leidenuniv.nl. Retrieved 2017-07-19.
  156. ^ Mantelero, Alessandro (2014-12-01). “The future of consumer data protection in the E.U. Re-thinking the “notice and consent” paradigm in the new era of predictive analytics”. Computer Law & Security Review. 30 (6): 643–660. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2014.09.004. ISSN 0267-3649. S2CID 61135032.
  157. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Westin, Alan (1967). Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum.
  158. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Hughes, Kirsty (2012). “A Behavioural Understanding of Privacy and Its Implications for Privacy Law”. The Modern Law Review. 75 (5): 806–836. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2230.2012.00925.x. S2CID 142188960.
  159. ^ Johnson, Carl A. (1974). “Privacy as Personal Control”. Man-environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications: Part 2. 6: 83–100.
  160. ^ Johnson 1974, p. 90.
  161. ^ Johnson 1974, pp. 85–89.
  162. ^ Magnani, Lorenzo (2007). “4, “Knowledge as Duty: Cyberprivacy””. Morality in a Technological World: Knowledge as Duty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 110–118. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511498657. ISBN 9780511498657.
  163. ^ Magnani (2007), p. 116, ch. 4, “Knowledge as Duty: Cyberprivacy”.
  164. ^ Johnson 1974, pp. 90–92.
  165. ^ Solove 2010, p. 21.
  166. ^ Posner, Richard A. (1983). The economics of justice (5. print ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 271. ISBN 978-0-674-23526-7.
  167. ^ Jump up to:a b Solove 2010, pp. 22–23.
  168. ^ Jump up to:a b c Reiman, Jeffrey (1976). “Privacy, Intimacy, and Personhood”. Philosophy & Public Affairs.
  169. ^ Jump up to:a b c d Benn, Stanley. “Privacy, freedom, and respect for persons”. In Schoeman, Ferdinand (ed.). Philosophical Dimensions of Privacy: An Anthology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  170. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Kufer, Joseph (1987). “Privacy, Autonomy, and Self-Concept”. American Philosophical Quarterly.
  171. ^ Goffman, Erving (1968). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Doubleday.
  172. ^ Jump up to:a b c Altman, Irwin (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior: Privacy, Personal Space, Territory, and Crowding. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.[ISBN missing]
  173. ^ Jump up to:a b c Solove 2010, p. 35.
  174. ^ Rachels, James (Summer 1975). “Why Privacy is Important”. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 4 (4): 323–333. JSTOR 2265077.
  175. ^ Citron, Danielle (2019). “Sexual Privacy”. Yale Law Journal. 128: 1877, 1880.
  176. ^ H. Jeff Smith (1994). Managing Privacy: Information Technology and Corporate America. UNC Press Books. ISBN 978-0807821473.
  177. ^ Jump up to:a b “Fixing the Fourth Amendment with trade secret law: A response to Kyllo v. United States”. Georgetown Law Journal. 2002.
  178. ^ “Security Recommendations For Stalking Victims”. Privacyrights. 11 January 2012. Archived from the original on 11 January 2012. Retrieved 2 February 2008.
  179. ^ “FindLaw’s Writ – Amar: Executive Privilege”. Writ.corporate.findlaw.com. 2004-04-16. Retrieved 2012-01-01.
  180. ^ Popa, C., et al., “Managing Personal Information: Insights on Corporate Risk and Opportunity for Privacy-Savvy Leaders”, Carswell (2012), Ch. 6
  181. ^ Flaherty, D. (1989). Protecting privacy in surveillance societies: The federal republic of Germany, Sweden, France, Canada, and the United States. Chapel Hill, U.S.: The University of North Carolina Press.
  182. ^ Posner, R. A. (1981). “The economics of privacy”. The American Economic Review. 71 (2): 405–409.
  183. ^ Lessig (2006), p. 229: “In my view, the protection of privacy would be stronger if people conceived of the right as a property right.”.
  184. ^ Lessig (2006).
  185. ^ Johnson, Deborah (2009). Beauchamp; Bowie; Arnold (eds.). Ethical theory and business (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. pp. 428–442. ISBN 978-0-13-612602-7.
  186. ^ Regan, P. M. (1995). Legislating privacy: Technology, social values, and public policy. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.[ISBN missing][page needed]
  187. ^ “United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. 1948. Archived from the original on 2014-12-08.
  188. ^ Shade, L.R. (2008). “Reconsidering the right to privacy in Canada”. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 28(1), 80–91.
  189. ^ Watt, Eliza. “The role of international human rights law in the protection of online privacy in the age of surveillance.” In 2017 9th International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon), pp. 1–14. IEEE, 2017.
  190. ^ Jump up to:a b Swartz, J., “‘Opting In’: A Privacy Paradox”, The Washington Post, 03 Sep 2000, H.1.
  191. ^ Bedrick, B., Lerner, B., Whitehead, B. “The privacy paradox: Introduction”, News Media and the Law, Washington, DC, Volume 22, Issue 2, Spring 1998, pp. P1–P3.
  192. ^ J. Sweat “Privacy paradox: Customers want control – and coupons”, Information Week, Manhasset Iss, 781, April 10, 2000, p. 52.
  193. ^ “Volume 11, Number 9”. firstmonday.org. 4 September 2006. Retrieved 2019-11-25.
  194. ^ Taddicken, Monika (January 2014). “The ‘Privacy Paradox’ in the Social Web: The Impact of Privacy Concerns, Individual Characteristics, and the Perceived Social Relevance on Different Forms of Self-Disclosure”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 19 (2): 248–273. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12052.
  195. ^ Nemec Zlatolas, Lili; Welzer, Tatjana; Heričko, Marjan; Hölbl, Marko (April 2015). “Privacy antecedents for SNS self-disclosure: The case of Facebook”. Computers in Human Behavior. 45: 158–167. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.012.
  196. ^ Baruh, Lemi; Secinti, Ekin; Cemalcilar, Zeynep (February 2017). “Online Privacy Concerns and Privacy Management: A Meta-Analytical Review: Privacy Concerns Meta-Analysis”. Journal of Communication. 67 (1): 26–53. doi:10.1111/jcom.12276.
  197. ^ Gerber, Nina; Gerber, Paul; Volkamer, Melanie (August 2018). “Explaining the privacy paradox: A systematic review of literature investigating privacy attitude and behavior”. Computers & Security. 77: 226–261. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.002. S2CID 52884338.
  198. ^ Kaiser, Florian G.; Byrka, Katarzyna; Hartig, Terry (November 2010). “Reviving Campbell’s Paradigm for Attitude Research”. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 14 (4): 351–367. doi:10.1177/1088868310366452. ISSN 1088-8683. PMID 20435803. S2CID 5394359.
  199. ^ Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006, June). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In Privacy enhancing technologies (pp. 36–58). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  200. ^ Cofone, Ignacio (2023). The Privacy Fallacy: Harm and Power in the Information Economy. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108995443.
  201. ^ S. Livingstone (2008). “Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression” (PDF). New Media & Society. 10 (3): 393–411. doi:10.1177/1461444808089415. S2CID 31076785.
  202. ^ Utz, S., & Kramer, N. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, article 1. [1] Archived 2016-04-13 at the Wayback Machine
  203. ^ Jump up to:a b Barth, Susanne; de Jong, Menno D. T. (2017-11-01). “The privacy paradox – Investigating discrepancies between expressed privacy concerns and actual online behavior – A systematic literature review”. Telematics and Informatics. 34 (7): 1038–1058. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.013. ISSN 0736-5853.
  204. ^ Jump up to:a b Kokolakis, Spyros (January 2017). “Privacy attitudes and privacy behaviour: A review of current research on the privacy paradox phenomenon”. Computers & Security. 64: 122–134. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2015.07.002. S2CID 422308.
  205. ^ Barth, Susanne; de Jong, Menno D. T.; Junger, Marianne; Hartel, Pieter H.; Roppelt, Janina C. (2019-08-01). “Putting the privacy paradox to the test: Online privacy and security behaviors among users with technical knowledge, privacy awareness, and financial resources”. Telematics and Informatics. 41: 55–69. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2019.03.003. ISSN 0736-5853.
  206. ^ Jump up to:a b Frik, Alisa; Gaudeul, Alexia (2020-03-27). “A measure of the implicit value of privacy under risk”. Journal of Consumer Marketing. 37 (4): 457–472. doi:10.1108/JCM-06-2019-3286. ISSN 0736-3761. S2CID 216265480.
  207. ^ Burkhardt, Kai. “The privacy paradox is a privacy dilemma”. Internet Citizen. Retrieved 2020-01-10.
  208. ^ Egelman, Serge; Felt, Adrienne Porter; Wagner, David (2013), “Choice Architecture and Smartphone Privacy: There’s a Price for That”, The Economics of Information Security and Privacy, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 211–236, doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39498-0_10, ISBN 978-3-642-39497-3, S2CID 11701552
  209. ^ Jump up to:a b Belliger, Andréa; Krieger, David J. (2018), “2. The Privacy Paradox”, Network Publicy Governance, Digitale Gesellschaft, vol. 20, transcript Verlag, pp. 45–76, doi:10.14361/9783839442135-003, ISBN 978-3-8394-4213-5, S2CID 239333913
  210. ^ Laufer, Robert S.; Wolfe, Maxine (July 1977). “Privacy as a Concept and a Social Issue: A Multidimensional Developmental Theory”. Journal of Social Issues. 33 (3): 22–42. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1977.tb01880.x.
  211. ^ Culnan, Mary J.; Armstrong, Pamela K. (February 1999). “Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness, and Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation”. Organization Science. 10 (1): 104–115. doi:10.1287/orsc.10.1.104. ISSN 1047-7039. S2CID 54041604.
  212. ^ Trepte, Sabine; Reinecke, Leonard; Ellison, Nicole B.; Quiring, Oliver; Yao, Mike Z.; Ziegele, Marc (January 2017). “A Cross-Cultural Perspective on the Privacy Calculus”. Social Media + Society. 3 (1): 205630511668803. doi:10.1177/2056305116688035. ISSN 2056-3051.
  213. ^ Krasnova, Hanna; Spiekermann, Sarah; Koroleva, Ksenia; Hildebrand, Thomas (June 2010). “Online Social Networks: Why We Disclose”. Journal of Information Technology. 25 (2): 109–125. doi:10.1057/jit.2010.6. ISSN 0268-3962. S2CID 33649999.
  214. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e Solove 2010, p. 101.
  215. ^ Prosser, William (1960). “Privacy”. California Law Review. 48 (383): 389. doi:10.2307/3478805. JSTOR 3478805.
  216. ^ Jump up to:a b c Solove 2010, p. 103.
  217. ^ Zhou, Yinghui; Lu, Shasha; Ding, Min (2020-05-04). “Contour-as-Face Framework: A Method to Preserve Privacy and Perception”. Journal of Marketing Research. 57 (4): 617–639. doi:10.1177/0022243720920256. ISSN 0022-2437. S2CID 218917353.
  218. ^ Esteve, Asunción (2017). “The business of personal data: Google, Facebook, and privacy issues in the EU and the USA”. International Data Privacy Law. 7 (1): 36–47. doi:10.1093/idpl/ipw026.
  219. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Solove 2010, pp. 104–05.
  220. ^ “How to Encrypt Email (Gmail, Outlook, iOS, Yahoo, Android, AOL)”. Panda Security Mediacenter. 2021-03-02. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  221. ^ “Signal Messenger: Speak Freely”. Signal Messenger. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  222. ^ Lee, Micah (2015-11-12). “Edward Snowden Explains How To Reclaim Your Privacy”. The Intercept. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
  223. ^ Cheng, Evelyn (2017-08-29). “Dark web finds bitcoin increasingly more of a problem than a help, tries other digital currencies”. CNBC. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
  224. ^ Ell, Kellie (2018-07-13). “Coinbase considers adding five new coins to its platform”. CNBC. Retrieved 2024-01-29.
  225. ^ “Anonymizers vs. VPNs: Everything You Need to Know”. Privacy & VPN Blog – Orchid. 2021-05-11. Retrieved 2022-01-22.
  226. ^ Jump up to:a b “7 Tips to Manage Your Identity and Protect Your Privacy Online”. Stay Safe Online. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  227. ^ Gordon, Whitson (25 January 2019). “How to Protect Your Digital Privacy”. The New York Times. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  228. ^ “Your Technology Is Tracking You. Take These Steps For Better Online Privacy : Life Kit”. NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-11-22.
  229. ^ “David Attenborough: zoos should use peepholes to respect gorillas’ privacy”. The Guardian. Agence France-Presse. 18 October 2016. Retrieved 10 August 2022.
  230. ^ Jump up to:a b Pepper, Angie (December 2020). “Glass Panels and Peepholes: Nonhuman Animals and the Right to Privacy”. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 101 (4): 628–650. doi:10.1111/papq.12329. ISSN 0279-0750.
  231. ^ Eveleth, Rose (31 January 2020). “Animals Need Digital Privacy Too”. Wired. Retrieved 10 August 2022.
  232. “Definition of Interoperability”. dedicated website for a Definition of Interoperability at interoperability-definition.info. Copyright AFUL under CC BY-SA. Archived from the original on 2017-03-14. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
  233. ^ Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Standard Computer Dictionary: A Compilation of IEEE Standard Computer Glossaries. New York, NY: 1990.
  234. ^ Slater, T. (2012). “What is Interoperability?”. Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium. Archived from the original on 2014-07-14.
  235. ^ Slater, T. “Cross-Domain Interoperability”[usurped], Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium – NCOIC[usurped], 2013
  236. ^ Vercruysse, Kim; Dawson, David A.; Wright, Nigel (2019). “Interoperability: A conceptual framework to bridge the gap between multifunctional and multisystem urban flood management”. Journal of Flood Risk Management. 12 (S2): e12535. Bibcode:2019JFRM…12E2535V. doi:10.1111/jfr3.12535. ISSN 1753-318X.
  237. ^ Fenner, Richard; o’Donnell, Emily; Ahilan, Sangaralingam; Dawson, David; Kapetas, Leon; Krivtsov, Vladimir; Ncube, Sikhululekile; Vercruysse, Kim (2019), “Achieving Urban Flood Resilience in an Uncertain Future”, Water, 11 (5): 1082, doi:10.3390/w11051082, hdl:10871/37244
  238. ^ “Urban Flood Resilience”. www.urbanfloodresilience.ac.uk. Retrieved 2019-05-15.
  239. ^ NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, NATO AAP-06[permanent dead link]
  240. ^ Interoperability: A continuing Challenge in Coalition Air Operations – Chapter 2 “A broad Definition of Interoperability”, by Myron Hura, Gary McLeod, James Schneider and others, RAND Monograph Report, 2000, [1] Archived 2013-10-19 at the Wayback Machine
  241. ^ Allen, D. K., Karanasios, S., & Norman, A. (2013). Information sharing and interoperability: the case of major incident management. European Journal of Information Systems, 10.1057/ejis.2013.8.
  242. ^ Baldini, G. (2010). Report of the workshop on “Interoperable communications for Safety and Security”. Ispra: European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen.
  243. ^ “Interoperability system bridges communications gap”. FireRescue1. Archived from the original on 2017-02-02. Retrieved 2017-01-25.
  244. ^ Grier, Robin. “Interoperability Solutions”. Interoperability. Catalyst Communications. Retrieved 28 May 2011.
  245. ^ “FATPOT Technologies”. Archived from the original on 2018-07-10. Retrieved 2019-09-08.
  246. ^ “SIEC”. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  247. ^ “SAFECOM – Homeland Security”. Archived from the original on 2014-12-21. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  248. ^ “Apple opposes EU plans to make common charger port for all devices”. The Guardian. 23 September 2021. Retrieved 19 October 2021.
  249. ^ Peltier, Elian (23 September 2021). “In a setback for Apple, the European Union seeks a common charger for all phones”. The New York Times. Retrieved 19 October 2021.
  250. ^ “One common charging solution for all”. Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs – European Commission. 5 July 2016. Retrieved 19 October 2021.
  251. ^ Open Search Environments: The Free Alternative to Commercial Search Services
  252. ^ Gordon and Hernandez (2016-05-16). The Official Guide to the SSCP Book. SYBEX. ISBN 978-1119278634.
  253. ^ SC36 Secretariat (2003-11-13). “Proposed Draft Technical Report for: ISO/IEC xxxxx, Information technology — Learning, education, and training — Management and delivery — Specification and use of extensions and profiles” (PDF). ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-11-29. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  254. ^ “Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration”. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  255. ^ “OSLC (Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration): open standard for i…”. 30 November 2011. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  256. ^ 9. Java and JVM Interoperability [Book].
  257. ^ Thomas, Ben (5 March 2013). “Invalid Files and Language Learning: Your Brain’s Interoperable World”. Huffington Post. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  258. ^ Bandoim, Lana. “Unified Interoperability as the Alternative to Big Data Costs?”. Yahoo! Voices. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  259. ^ Jump up to:a b Moran, Andrew. “Tech leaders collaborate, unite over unified interoperability”. Digital Journal. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  260. ^ “Next Generation Data Interoperability: It’s all About the Metadata” (PDF). Whitemarsh Information Systems Corporation. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  261. ^ “Interoperability: What Is It and Why Should I Want It?”. Ariadne. Retrieved 13 March 2013.
  262. ^ MP Gallaher; AC O’Connor; JL Dettbarn, Jr.; LT Gilday (August 2004). Cost Analysis of Inadequate Interoperability in the U.S. Capital Facilities Industry (PDF) (Report). National Institute of Standards and Technology. p. iv. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-02-04. Retrieved 2012-04-19.
  263. ^ “e-Government Interoperability A comparative analysis of 30 countries” (PDF). CS Transform. 2010. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-10-09. Retrieved 21 January 2016.
  264. ^ CIMIT – Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology – the MD PnP Program on Medical Device Interoperability
  265. ^ “RAPS Preview: FDA CDRH Director Shuren Talks Priorities”. September 19, 2016. Retrieved April 8, 2017.
  266. ^ Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Federal Standard 1037C. General Services Administration. Archived from the original on 2022-01-22. (in support of MIL-STD-188).
  267. ^ Public Domain This article incorporates public domain material from Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. United States Department of Defense.
  268. ^ Eastman, Charles M., and Eastman, Chuck (2008) BIM handbook: a guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers, and contractors John Wiley & Sons, pp.72-73.
  269. ^ “European Land Information Service”. Archived from the original on 2008-03-31. Retrieved 2008-10-19.
  270. ^ Design, Erskine. “Welcome – EULIS”. Archived from the original on 17 September 2016. Retrieved 12 August 2016.
  271. ^ “European Interoperability Framework (EIF)”.
  272. ^ IoT Semantic Interoperability: Research Challenges, Best Practices, Recommendations and Next Steps (PDF), European Research Cluster on the Internet of Things, March 2015
  273. ^ Morris, KC; Kulvatunyou, Serm; Frechette, Simon; Lubell, Josh; Goyal, Puja (December 2004). “XML Schema Validation Process for CORE.GOV” (PDF). Manufacturing Systems Integration Division, National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 13 June 2023.
  274. ^ NIEMOpen

Share

× How can I help you?