fne8w2ah@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 months agoNYPD faces backlash as it prepares to encrypt radio communications | New York | The Guardianwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square137fedilinkarrow-up1515arrow-down112cross-posted to: thepoliceproblem@lemmy.worldacab@lemmygrad.mlnews@lemmy.world
arrow-up1503arrow-down1external-linkNYPD faces backlash as it prepares to encrypt radio communications | New York | The Guardianwww.theguardian.comfne8w2ah@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 11 months agomessage-square137fedilinkcross-posted to: thepoliceproblem@lemmy.worldacab@lemmygrad.mlnews@lemmy.world
minus-squarerockSlayer@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up24arrow-down4·edit-211 months agoIt’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
minus-squaregodzillabacter@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up7·11 months agoI know, which is why my example was about providing the patient’s name over the radio.
minus-squareKairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·11 months agoDoes EMS typically provide patient names over the radio? That honestly seems like information that would normally not be needed, or potentially even known.
minus-squareKusimulkku@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·11 months agoThey have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It’s a limitation of the system.
It’s not a HIPAA violation for a report like this to go over unsecured radio waves:
I know, which is why my example was about providing the patient’s name over the radio.
Does EMS typically provide patient names over the radio? That honestly seems like information that would normally not be needed, or potentially even known.
They have to keep it vague like that because the channel is open to all. It’s a limitation of the system.