The most obvious solution would be to *not transmit* the personal info
since it's not going to be of relevance and would only serve to tie up
the communications channels.
Patient 1 - Broken leg - location info
Patenet 2 - Head wound - location info
After all, even EMS does not give the info you provided enroute to the
hospital. They don't give patient names or SSNs in order to comply with
HIIPA. They don't try to use HIIPA to allow them to use encryption
(which would be dangerous in an emergency situation where you're dealing
with interoperability issues to start with).
Besides, if they have the info and the patient, it can be transported to
the hospital *with the patient*. There is no need for it to be aired.
Joe M.
Frank P. wrote:
> Several months ago the ARRL questioned the FCC concerning the rules
> of NO ENCRYPTION versus THE PRIVACY ACT. I don't have the exact
> quote handy, but I believe the query had to do with "after a
> disaster" communications. Here is a theoretical scenario similar to
> the one posed to the FCC:
>
> A group of ARES volunteers at a local shelter are in direct
> communication with the Red Cross HQ, or a hospital, or the local
> OEM. The shelter has several sick or injured individuals who need
> assistance or transportation to a hospital. The shelter emcom hams
> prepare a database (Excel spreadsheet, text message, etc.) containing
> the names, addresses, SSN's, Health Insurance info, and other data
> covered by the federal Privacy Act. How do they send this info
> without violating the Privacy Act? They encrypt the data, as per a
> prearranged method between the emcom personnel and the receiver{s) of
> the data, and transmit it using packet, winlink, D-Star digital data
> or other digital means. The non-encrypted header of the message
> should state "The data contained herein contains personal health
> information and has been encrypted to preserve the privacy of the
> individual patients".
>
> Now, the FCC regulations for amateur radio, part 97, rule that
> encryption cannot be used to "obscure the meaning" of communications.
>
> So, if you state in the un-encrypted header that only the "substance"
> of the message has been encrypted, and the meaning (or reason)for the
> encryption is to follow the rules of the Privacy Act, then the
> encryption should be allowed.
>
> If any of you on this reflector can find the exact text of the
> opinion rendered by the FCC on this matter, please post it for the
> edification of our fellow members, and for possible future reference
> for ARES / RACES personnel.
>
> 73, de Frank Porcaro, N2RSO
> Wantagh Long Island NY
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please TRIM your replies or set your email program not to include the
> original message in reply unless needed for clarity. ThanksYahoo! Groups
> Links
>
>
>
>
