this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
501 points (97.7% liked)

Technology

57432 readers
3634 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 34 points 7 months ago (4 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.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 33 points 7 months ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 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?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 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. 🤦🏻‍♂️

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months 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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Newsflash: Cellphone calls are not encrypted either, believe it or not.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That may be the case with older technologies but VoLTE very much is.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but how many phones/carriers actually use this by default in the US?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

I would expect it to be nearly all devices. America was in the process of shutting down the old technologies and I believe has in most cases.

https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/plan-ahead-phase-out-3g-cellular-networks-and-service