Comment on NYPD faces backlash as it prepares to encrypt radio communications | New York | The Guardian

• godzillabacter@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It’s not a HIPAA violation for a report like this to go over insecure radio waves:

    16 year old male, unresponsive. Suspected alcohol poisoning. EMS required. Address to be provided by emergency services

    source

    • godzillabacter@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient’s name over the radio.

      source

      • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Does EMS typically provide patient names over the radio? That honestly seems like information that would normally not be needed, or potentially even known.

        source
    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It’s a limitation of the system.

      source
  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨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.

    source

    • chakan2@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That’s absurd. There are very specific guidelines for sharing protected health information with and among law enforcement. There is no paperwork that “all receiving parties” can fill out to cover a blanket broadcast of protected information to anyone with an encrypted police radio. You would still need to have a specific purpose for disclosure, and disclose only the required information to only the necessary parties. An encrypted channel would still be available to dispatchers, administrators, and a bunch of random people that don’t need to receive that information.

        Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.34

        source
    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com ⁨10⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I’ll copy my reply to the above, but add that someonr who has the key to encrypt a broadcast doesn’t necessarily have a need to receive private health information. Law enforcement officials may receive protected information if they need it in the course of their duties.

        This is like HIPAA training 101 stuff. If you’re a doctor at a hospital, you might be able to access any patient’s records. But if you peek at a celebrity’s serologies, you’ve violated HIPAA. Broadcasting on an encrypted channel would be like posting test results in a locker room and arguing that it’s OK because only doctors have a key to the room.

        That’s absurd. There are very specific guidelines for sharing protected health information with and among law enforcement. There is no paperwork that “all receiving parties” can fill out to cover a blanket broadcast of protected information to anyone with an encrypted police radio. You would still need to have a specific purpose for disclosure, and disclose only the required information to only the necessary parties. An encrypted channel would still be available to dispatchers, administrators, and a bunch of random people that don’t need to receive that information.

        Covered entities may disclose protected health information to law enforcement officials for law enforcement purposes under the following six circumstances, and subject to specified conditions: (1) as required by law (including court orders, court-ordered warrants, subpoenas) and administrative requests; (2) to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, material witness, or missing person; (3) in response to a law enforcement official’s request for information about a victim or suspected victim of a crime; (4) to alert law enforcement of a person’s death, if the covered entity suspects that criminal activity caused the death; (5) when a covered entity believes that protected health information is evidence of a crime that occurred on its premises; and (6) by a covered health care provider in a medical emergency not occurring on its premises, when necessary to inform law enforcement about the commission and nature of a crime, the location of the crime or crime victims, and the perpetrator of the crime.34

        www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/…/index.html

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• JaymesRS@literature.cafe ⁨10⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • Cethin@lemmy.zip ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’ve never heard of this happening. It’s probably more for people avoiding police and maybe ambulance chasers.

    source

    • JaymesRS@literature.cafe ⁨10⁩ ⁨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.

      source

      • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        And? Do you think he heard about it from a police radio, and not literally every news outlet that was covering it at the time?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • ripcord@kbin.social ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Plausible, but is it likely? Enough to be even remotely worth it...?

        source
  • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨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?

    source

    • JaymesRS@literature.cafe ⁨10⁩ ⁨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…

      do we need to encrypt ALL chatter…

      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.

      source