Newsflash: Cellphone calls are not encrypted either, believe it or not.
Comment on NYPD faces backlash as it prepares to encrypt radio communications | New York | The Guardian
Toes@ani.social 8 months agoI suspect it would be helpful for protecting sensitive situations. Currently (at least with EMS) they call each other’s cellphones for that, not ideal.
ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Toes@ani.social 8 months ago
That may be the case with older technologies but VoLTE very much is.
ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Sure, but how many phones/carriers actually use this by default in the US?
Toes@ani.social 8 months ago
I would expect it to be nearly all devices. America was in the process of shutting down the old technologies and I believe has in most cases.
LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch 8 months ago
Or fucking use telegram or Whatsapp. Anything except the official equipment.
ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Those are both terrible examples of messaging apps, because they are not properly secured. Signal would be a much better option.
blackn1ght@feddit.uk 8 months ago
WhatsApp is, Telegram isn’t.
ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Nah, Telegram really isn’t good www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE
CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 8 months ago
What kind of situations?
godzillabacter@lemmy.world 8 months ago
EMS communication over unencrypted channels is limited by HIPAA, patient information must be kept vague to protect patient privacy. In the event that, say, an individuals name needs to be given to the receiving facility to facilitate review of records prior to arrival by the ER physician, some other method of communication has to be used.
rockSlayer@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It’s not a HIPAA violation for a report like this to go over insecure radio waves:
godzillabacter@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient’s name over the radio.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 8 months ago
They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It’s a limitation of the system.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Encryption on radio communications would not help that at all. It would still be a HIPAA violation to share sensitive information on a broadcast, even if it is encrypted.
chakan2@lemmy.world 8 months ago
That’s very incorrect. End to End encryption is legal under HIPPA. All the receiving parties have likely filled out the HIPPA yearly thing, so they’d be covered.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 months ago
Source? If you broadcast encrypted data you’re not sharing it with anyone who doesn’t have the right key to decrypt it. Someone could theoretically crack the encryption, but literally every method of transmitting information is vulnerable to being intercepted by a sufficiently motivated attacker.
JaymesRS@literature.cafe 8 months ago
Off of the top of my head, I can see how an announcement of an open shooter at a location might attract some Meal Team 6 Rambo wanna-be to try and bust in and save the day and making it significantly worse.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 months ago
I’ve never heard of this happening. It’s probably more for people avoiding police and maybe ambulance chasers.
JaymesRS@literature.cafe 8 months ago
We had a kid cross state lines to show up to a riot with a gun to defend property and shoot people. Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it’s not plausible which is what I said.
CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 8 months ago
OK, so something thats never happened before needs to be curtailed?
And even if so, active shooters are rare, do we need to encrypt ALL chatter for something that happens maybe every few years for a given precinct/jurisdiction?
JaymesRS@literature.cafe 8 months ago
Nope, even never had any sort of analogous situation where armed civilians show up to insert themselves and potentially complicate matters: washingtonpost.com/…/in-all-reality-there-were-th…
I never suggested we did. The original poster referenced a specific context of a “sensitive situation” and you asked for an example, so I provided one that could qualify.