Lawyers, once they take off the suit and go home to their kids, are end users, not businesses. It would simply be easier for someone to initiate the lawsuit if they have a background in law.
They also should “know” that being forceful about backup prompts, AI features, and major version upgrades will irritate users into switching off their OS, and yet they’re doing it anyway. Logic is not driving their actions; greed for data is.
When they’re specifically writing business plans designed for hospitals, sure, they can likely account for it. But not when designing end user services that are laissez-faire about user data privacy - on the random things people put in “My Documents”. As with many organizations, it’s very possible the two parts of the corporation don’t talk to each other.
HIPAA applies to whichever entity consciously chooses to move/store data.
Generally, after a patient downloads a healthcare-related item, they are that entity - and as the patient, they have full control/decisions about where it goes, so they can't violate their own HIPAA agreement even if they print it and scatter it to the wind.
BUT, if your operating system "decides" to upload that document without the user's involvement, then Microsoft is that entity - and having not received conscious permission from the patient, would be in violation. It's an entirely different circumstance if the user is always going through clear prompts, but their more recent OneDrive Backup goal has been extremely forceful and easy to accidentally turn on - even to the point of being hard to disable. As you said, encryption has nothing to do with it.
It is feasible to CHOOSE to use OneDrive and take all the proper precautions. We're talking about home users getting OneDrive data uploaded without their consent through their "push assumed default", and "giant popup, tiny cancel" setups.
The article you link only says it's okay when using a OneDrive business plan together with a signed agreement.
The moment a lawyer saves their medical records in a way that unintentionally and without their consent uploads them to OneDrive, they have a pretty solid case to charge Microsoft for a HIPAA violation.
It’s a way of verification and trust in a system where no one trusts any central authority, but does trust an algorithm. That seems too specific to ever actually be useful. People will end up relying on services or instructions that make the system digestible and usable for them, but as long as they still rely on those giving the instructions, the same problem arises.
And when an example case is brought up, it’s always one central authority that is pushing the idea - and could achieve the same more easily and without power waste using a central server.
Eating and drinking on set is notoriously difficult to pull off. You see one take, but the crew has done about 17 takes of the same scene. Even with chefs on hand, they can’t bloat the actors up with food. Hence why in most dinner scenes, there’s a lot of cutting and mocked chewing but little goes in their mouth.
Might be fun to have fiction that exposes this stuff - that giving coy, five-word responses to concerns of the organization doesn’t actually make someone a good leader.
The third item, while it fits the narrative, was a quote directed more towards the option of subscription services. It wasn’t really directed to gamers, but to shareholders to explain low Ubisoft+ numbers, basically saying people may need time to warm up to the idea.
Considering how many interesting indies I’ve played on Game Pass (and, ever since Tango was murdered, PS+) I think there’s merit to that (just not on Ubisoft’s platform). There’s probably dozens of old PS1 classics we never would have tried out if our local Blockbuster hadn’t had them available for rent. I mean heck, $60 was a LOT back then for those polygons.
Oh, no argument from me on that. And it's horrible that Microsoft is starting to make people choose between having a secure system and avoiding their adware bullshit.