locked Re: Does turning-on "BitLocker" cause any accessibility issues?

JM Casey

Agreed! Hopefully they are successful in arranging an alternative solution.




From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian Vogel
Sent: May 26, 2021 01:09 PM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] Does turning-on "BitLocker" cause any accessibility issues?


On Wed, May 26, 2021 at 12:55 PM, JM Casey wrote:

trying to suggest that an organisation do thigns differently (or use a different application) is sometimes just a losing battle – they just won’t budge.

No one knows this better than I do, believe me.  I worked in the IT industry for decades, and even after I'd left it I was on "the other side" of this battle on more than one occasion.

The OP did say this, "However, it is a requirement of the employer to have such on a home PC used for remote work (HIPAA)."  That was after my having raised concerns about BitLocker.  It is still not entirely clear to me whether the employer is insisting on BitLocker, which is likely, or just encryption, which could also be the case.

It is at least somewhat problematic for any employer, particularly if we're talking "gig work," to insist that anything other than what's needed to meet the requirements of the law be used.  That's why I suggest pushing back, and that doesn't mean belligerent pushing back.  Often something akin to, "BitLocker has proven to cause accessibility issues that can make it significantly more difficult for me to perform this job and do other routine tasks of my own.  Would it be possible to use {insert chosen alternative here} for encryption?"  Many of the alternatives are well-known to those who need to know about them for HIPAA compliance purposes.  The answer might surprise.

Join nvda@nvda.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.