▲ 504 ▼ NYPD faces backlash as it prepares to encrypt radio communications | New York | The Guardian (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world 134 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] scottmeme@sh.itjust.works 64 points 2 years ago (35 children) Yeah police radio should never be encrypted. permalink fedilink source hideshow 35 child comments replies: [–] Toes@ani.social 34 points 2 years ago (34 children) I suspect it would be helpful for protecting sensitive situations. Currently (at least with EMS) they call each other's cellphones for that, not ideal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 34 child comments replies: [–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (21 children) What kind of situations? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (10 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (3 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient's name over the radio. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It's a limitation of the system. permalink fedilink source parent [+] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] chakan2@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe -1 points 2 years ago (9 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 years ago (6 children) I've never heard of this happening. It's probably more for people avoiding police and maybe ambulance chasers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago Plausible, but is it likely? Enough to be even remotely worth it...? permalink fedilink source parent [–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago Nope, even never had any sort of analogous situation where armed civilians show up to insert themselves and potentially complicate matters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/07/13/feature/in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-its-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/ 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. permalink fedilink source parent [+] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) Newsflash: Cellphone calls are not encrypted either, believe it or not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Toes@ani.social 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) That may be the case with older technologies but VoLTE very much is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, but how many phones/carriers actually use this by default in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Toes@ani.social 1 point 2 years 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. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/plan-ahead-phase-out-3g-cellular-networks-and-service permalink fedilink source parent [+] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch -10 points 2 years ago (6 children) Or fucking use telegram or Whatsapp. Anything except the official equipment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) Those are both terrible examples of messaging apps, because they are not properly secured (end-to-end encrypted). Signal would be a much better option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) WhatsApp is, Telegram isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (3 children) Nah, Telegram really isn't good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That's why I said Telegram isn't :D permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://www.piped.video/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's awesome permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Toes@ani.social 34 points 2 years ago (34 children) I suspect it would be helpful for protecting sensitive situations. Currently (at least with EMS) they call each other's cellphones for that, not ideal. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 34 child comments replies: [–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (21 children) What kind of situations? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (10 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (3 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient's name over the radio. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It's a limitation of the system. permalink fedilink source parent [+] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] chakan2@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe -1 points 2 years ago (9 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 years ago (6 children) I've never heard of this happening. It's probably more for people avoiding police and maybe ambulance chasers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago Plausible, but is it likely? Enough to be even remotely worth it...? permalink fedilink source parent [–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago Nope, even never had any sort of analogous situation where armed civilians show up to insert themselves and potentially complicate matters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/07/13/feature/in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-its-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/ 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. permalink fedilink source parent [+] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) Newsflash: Cellphone calls are not encrypted either, believe it or not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Toes@ani.social 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) That may be the case with older technologies but VoLTE very much is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, but how many phones/carriers actually use this by default in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Toes@ani.social 1 point 2 years 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. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/plan-ahead-phase-out-3g-cellular-networks-and-service permalink fedilink source parent [+] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch -10 points 2 years ago (6 children) Or fucking use telegram or Whatsapp. Anything except the official equipment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) Those are both terrible examples of messaging apps, because they are not properly secured (end-to-end encrypted). Signal would be a much better option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) WhatsApp is, Telegram isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (3 children) Nah, Telegram really isn't good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That's why I said Telegram isn't :D permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://www.piped.video/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's awesome permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago (21 children) What kind of situations? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (10 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (3 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient's name over the radio. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It's a limitation of the system. permalink fedilink source parent [+] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] chakan2@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe -1 points 2 years ago (9 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 years ago (6 children) I've never heard of this happening. It's probably more for people avoiding police and maybe ambulance chasers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago Plausible, but is it likely? Enough to be even remotely worth it...? permalink fedilink source parent [–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago Nope, even never had any sort of analogous situation where armed civilians show up to insert themselves and potentially complicate matters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/07/13/feature/in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-its-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/ 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago (10 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (3 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient's name over the radio. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It's a limitation of the system. permalink fedilink source parent [+] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] chakan2@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago* (3 children) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient's name over the radio. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It's a limitation of the system. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] godzillabacter@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient's name over the radio. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It's a limitation of the system. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] themeatbridge@lemmy.world -9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] chakan2@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chakan2@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 point 2 years 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe -1 points 2 years ago (9 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 years ago (6 children) I've never heard of this happening. It's probably more for people avoiding police and maybe ambulance chasers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago Plausible, but is it likely? Enough to be even remotely worth it...? permalink fedilink source parent [–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago Nope, even never had any sort of analogous situation where armed civilians show up to insert themselves and potentially complicate matters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/07/13/feature/in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-its-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/ 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 years ago (6 children) I've never heard of this happening. It's probably more for people avoiding police and maybe ambulance chasers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago Plausible, but is it likely? Enough to be even remotely worth it...? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent [–] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago Plausible, but is it likely? Enough to be even remotely worth it...? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (3 children) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years 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. 🤦🏻♂️ permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ripcord@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago Plausible, but is it likely? Enough to be even remotely worth it...? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago Nope, even never had any sort of analogous situation where armed civilians show up to insert themselves and potentially complicate matters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/07/13/feature/in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-its-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/ 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 1 point 2 years ago Nope, even never had any sort of analogous situation where armed civilians show up to insert themselves and potentially complicate matters: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/07/13/feature/in-all-reality-there-were-three-shooters-oklahomans-kill-an-active-shooter-and-its-not-as-simple-as-it-sounds/ 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (3 children) Newsflash: Cellphone calls are not encrypted either, believe it or not. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Toes@ani.social 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) That may be the case with older technologies but VoLTE very much is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, but how many phones/carriers actually use this by default in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Toes@ani.social 1 point 2 years 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. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/plan-ahead-phase-out-3g-cellular-networks-and-service permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Toes@ani.social 7 points 2 years ago (2 children) That may be the case with older technologies but VoLTE very much is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, but how many phones/carriers actually use this by default in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Toes@ani.social 1 point 2 years 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. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/plan-ahead-phase-out-3g-cellular-networks-and-service permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure, but how many phones/carriers actually use this by default in the US? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Toes@ani.social 1 point 2 years 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. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/plan-ahead-phase-out-3g-cellular-networks-and-service permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Toes@ani.social 1 point 2 years 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. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/plan-ahead-phase-out-3g-cellular-networks-and-service permalink fedilink source parent
[+] LastYearsPumpkin@feddit.ch -10 points 2 years ago (6 children) Or fucking use telegram or Whatsapp. Anything except the official equipment. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) Those are both terrible examples of messaging apps, because they are not properly secured (end-to-end encrypted). Signal would be a much better option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) WhatsApp is, Telegram isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (3 children) Nah, Telegram really isn't good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That's why I said Telegram isn't :D permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://www.piped.video/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's awesome permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (5 children) Those are both terrible examples of messaging apps, because they are not properly secured (end-to-end encrypted). Signal would be a much better option. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) WhatsApp is, Telegram isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (3 children) Nah, Telegram really isn't good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That's why I said Telegram isn't :D permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://www.piped.video/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's awesome permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago (4 children) WhatsApp is, Telegram isn't. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (3 children) Nah, Telegram really isn't good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That's why I said Telegram isn't :D permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://www.piped.video/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's awesome permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (3 children) Nah, Telegram really isn't good https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That's why I said Telegram isn't :D permalink fedilink source parent [–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://www.piped.video/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's awesome permalink fedilink source parent
[–] blackn1ght@feddit.uk 1 point 2 years ago That's why I said Telegram isn't :D permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks [B] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://www.piped.video/watch?v=rtRQKQkvUfE Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube. I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] ScaNtuRd@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's awesome permalink fedilink source parent