• godzillabacter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

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

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

          • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        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.

        Edit: I hope y’all downvoters aren’t actually responsible for patient information.

        • chakan2@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          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.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            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

            https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          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.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I’ll copy my reply to the above, but add that someone 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. Private health information should only be shared in a secure communication, but encrypting the broadcast doesn’t change the fact that

            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. Having access to information is not the same as needing access to information, regardless of whether everyone has their paperwork in order.

            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

            https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/laws-regulations/index.html

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Ok, I think I see where our disagreement is. Would you agree that an encrypted broadcast is ok if you encrypt the sensitive information with a key that is only accessible to the specific individuals who need it? Not that I see any advantage to doing so—it’s just a hypothetical scenario.

    • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      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.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

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

        • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          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 as a valid reason.

          • gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            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?

            • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              You must know that unencrypted police radios have been a upstream source for local media for a long time, right?

              And I’m not arguing that encryption is a good idea, in fact I think a blanket encryption of emergency radio is a bad idea (but nuance on social media is invisible).

              This thread is simply in answer to an earlier poster who asked for a situation where it could be helpful to protect a sensitive situation and I provided one that we have seen analogs of in real life.

              • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                Sure, they get some information from radios. They also usually have at least one person at the headquarters at all times. They will know about big events regardless.

                • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I forgot that police have no filters or power in person to be more private in discussions about sensitive topics just because there’s a person at their precinct. All conversations happen wide open just like you get with a police-band scanner. 🤦🏻‍♂️

      • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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?