I see this sort of thing all the time and it genuinely baffles me how people won’t cover up the entirety of the text they’re trying to censor. I’ve even seen people go over text with multiple passes of a transparent brush (which you can almost see through by squinting, let alone if you pulled it into a photo editor). Like, why?
Comment on Secondsies
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
lol
But also, you should obscure that PHI more completely, just to be cautious.
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 hours ago
LodeMike@lemmy.today 15 hours ago
Whatever that top number may be, it’s very readable I just don’t wanna right now.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
Which is precisely my point - if I were so motivated, I could suss that out. Or do a partial/fragmentary OCR match on valid addresses in Ohio that align with possible zip code matches and narrow it down to a relatively small potential target set of addresses and individuals.
floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 hours ago
To target some random dude that received a silly prescription? Why go through all the effort when you could just pick a random residential address?
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
It’s not about motivation. It’s about “is it feasibly possible to actually identify a person from this partially-obscured PHI”. But also, who the fuck knows if they’re going to care about enforcing PHI and HIPAA laws now 🫠
Zorcron@lemmy.zip 13 hours ago
That’s the prescriber’s information. It says DEA, NPI, then the address, and probably phone number. None of that is HIPAA protected.
gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
Idk I’m not a pharmacist, but I do work in biotech and have access to systems with PHI. All I’m saying is I treat this whole area with an abundance of caution.
QuazarOmega@lemy.lol 13 hours ago
It’s an old picture anyways, who knows where it comes from at this point. If the original person hasn’t somehow got in trouble already, deleting this one won’t do much, so just smile and wave boys, smile and wave Image