Category: - Electronic Frontier Foundation

Private Surveillance Is a Lethal Weapon Anybody Can Buy: Is it too late to rein it in?

7/19/2019

Private Surveillance Is a Lethal Weapon Anybody Can Buy: Is it too late to rein it in?
Sharon Weinberger, The New York Times, July 19, 2019

. . . One thing is clear: The private surveillance industry is growing. A firm that creates a catalog of these technologies, once named the “Little Black Book of Electronic Surveillance,” changed the name in 2016 to the “Big BlackBook.” It had doubled in size in its first three years. The 2017 edition includes 150 vendors.

The genesis of this global spy bazaar can be traced back to the frenetic weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, when Congress rushed through the Patriot Act, a law that vastly expanded the American government’s wiretapping authorities. In the process, lawmakers inadvertently created a market for companies interested in providing services and technologies to collect and analyze the new trove of data. . . .

Activists, Amnesty International, Azerbaijan, Big Black Book of Electronic Surveillance, Cell Phones, Citizen Lab, Congress, Contractors, Cybersecurity, DarkMatter, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Digital Rights, Drones, Edward Snowden, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Ethiopia, European Union, Exports, Federal, FinSpy, FlexiSPY, Gamma Group, Guardian, Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, Intelligence Agencies, Internet, Journalists, Israel, Law, Law Enforcement, "Lawful Interception", Luta Security, National Security Agency, New York Times, NSO Group, Patriot Act, Prism, Privacy, Privacy International, Saudi Arabia, Security, State Department, Spyware, Surveillance, Surveillance Industry (Private), Surveillance (Private), Surveillance Technology, Syria, Telephones, TeleStrategies, Terrorism, Unit 8200, Uzbekistan, Vans,"Voice Print", Wassenaar Arrangement, Weapons, "Wiretappers Ball", Wiretapping, WiSpear

Law Enforcement Access [to Medical Records]

4/20/2019

Law Enforcement Access [to Medical Records]
Electronic Frontier Foundation no date

When exploring medical privacy issues, it's very useful to have an overview of the laws that affect control and privacy of medical information. We encourage you to read our legal overview.

Federal and state laws define some privacy rights for people who want to keep their medical records out of the hands of law enforcement. But law enforcement has many ways to access medical data when investigating crimes, identifying victims, or tracking down a fugitive. Often, the police are able to seek out sensitive medical records without an individual's consent—and sometimes without a judge's authorization.

To understand this, it's useful to compare the federal standards set by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) to the more privacy-protective legal standards in the State of California. We'll be jumping back and forth between the two throughout this discussion. Note: this discussion doesn’t cover access to health records relating to treatment in federally funded substance abuse facilities and programs under 42 U.S.C. § 290dd-2 and its “Part 2” regulations, which has stricter rules.

Disclosures of medical information to law enforcement by covered entities

The HIPAA Privacy Rule broadly defines law enforcement as "any government official at any level of government authorized to either investigate or prosecute a violation of the law."

Under HIPAA, medical information can be disclosed to law enforcement officials without an individual’s permission in a number of ways. Disclosures for law enforcement purposes apply not only to doctors or hospitals, but also to health plans, pharmacies, health care clearinghouses, and medical research labs. That's because under the HITECH Act, as implemented by the HIPAA Omnibus Rule, both a "covered entity" and any business associate (BA) are directly subject to these law enforcement access rules.

California has somewhat stronger privacy rules that require more court involvement, because HIPAA does not preempt more privacy-protective state laws. In California, search warrants for medical records are generally authorized under the Penal Code and require judicial approval based on probable cause. Less stringent court orders based on a showing of good cause can also be used. And in California, even if a mere administrative subpoena is used, the California Penal Code requires an authorizing court order.

By contrast, HIPAA permits 1 the police to use an administrative subpoena or other written request with no court involvement, as long as police include a written statement that the information they want is relevant, material, and limited in scope, and that de-identified information is insufficient. . . .

California,Federal, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Health Records, Law Enforcement, Medical, Medical Records, Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP), Privacy, State

National Security and Medical Information

4/20/2019

National Security and Medical Information
Electronic Frontier Foundation (no date)

When exploring medical privacy issues, it's very useful to have an overview of the laws that affect control and privacy of medical information. We encourage you to read our legal overview.

The government has many options for obtaining your medical records on the grounds of national security. And if your medical records are swept up in a national security investigation, you likely won't be asked to consent and potentially won't ever know your medical records were accessed.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule that went into effect in 2003 included a national security exception that permits doctors, hospitals, and any other "covered entity" to disclose individual health information "to authorized federal officials for the conduct of lawful intelligence, counter-intelligence, and other national security activities authorized by the National Security Act." This exception overrides the normal requirement that your authorization is needed before your medical information can be disclosed for anything other than your treatment, bill payment, or your health care provider’s business operations.

This national security exception appears to allow covered entities to disclose health records, at their own discretion, to any federal agency that plays a role in intelligence, counter-intelligence, and national security activities. This includes but isn't limited to the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA.

For example, a hospital could disclose any or all of the patient medical records in its possession to the NSA on the hospital’s own initiative, and could even allow the NSA or other federal agencies to access the hospital’s health record system on a permanent, ongoing basis. This could be done without a court order, without any procedural or substantive protections or barriers, and even without any request from the agency. . . .

Bio-terrorism, Central Intelligence Agency, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Federal, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Health Records, Intelligence Community, Medical, Medical Records, Military, National Security, National Security Act, National Security Agency, Notice of Privacy Practices (NPP), Patriot Act, President, Privacy, Section 215 of the Patriot Act, Secret Service, Surveillance

Coalition Letter on Reauthorization of Patriot Act's Section 215

4/15/2019

Letter from ACLU and 40 other groups requesting that Congress review Section 215 of the Patriot Act

March 18, 2019

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Doug Collins
Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Nadler and Ranking Member Collins:

The undersigned organizations, which are dedicated to preserving privacy, civil liberties, and advancing transparency and accountability, write to request that you hold hearings and make public information critical to permit an informed debate over the reauthorization of Section 215 and other provisions of the Patriot Act, which are set to expire December 15, 2019. . . .

Access Now, ADC American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, American Civil Liberties Union, American Library Association, Americans for Prosperity, Arab American Institute, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Call Detail Records, Carpenter v. United States 138 S.Ct. 2206, Cell Phones, Center for Democracy & Technology, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Color Of Change, Committee on the Judiciary, Consumer Action, Council on American-Islamic Relations, CREDO Action, Committee on Oversight and Reform, Defending Rights & Dissent, Demand Progress, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Fight for the Future, First Amendment, FISA Amendments Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Free Press Action, FreedomWorks, Government Accountability Project, Government Information Watch, Government Transparency, Human Rights Watch, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Indivisible, Liberty Coalition, Million Hoodies Movement for Justice, Muslim Justice League, Muslim Public Affairs Council, NAACP, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Immigration Law Center, National Security, National Security Agency, New America's Open Technology Institute, Open the Government, Patriot Act, PEN America, Privacy, Project on Government Oversight, Restore The Fourth Inc., Section 215 of the Patriot Act, Section 702 of FISA Amendments Act, TechFreedom, Telephones, Transparency International, “Unique Identifiers", USA Freedom Act, US House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Court Denies EFF Effort to Obtain Classified Significant Surveillance Court Opinions

3/28/2019

Court Denies EFF Effort to Obtain Classified Significant Surveillance Court Opinions
Electronic Frontier Foundation, Aaron Mackey,March 28, 2019

A federal court’s ruling earlier this week has blunted a key provision of the surveillance reform law that required the government to be more transparent about legal decisions made by the United States secret surveillance court.

After Edward Snowden revealed the government’s ongoing mass collection of Americans’ telephone phone records in 2013, Congress responded by passing the USA Freedom Act in 2015. In addition to limiting the NSA’s surveillance authority, Congress also clearly intended to end the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s (FISC) ability to keep the decisions it made behind closed doors secret.

Since its inception in the 1970s, the government has asked the FISC to decide what constitutional or other legal protections, if any, Americans and others enjoy while seeking approval of the government’s secret mass surveillance programs. Though we were not happy with many aspects of the final USA Freedom language, EFF was pleased that the final language did require that the government review and declassify “each decision, order, or opinion” that contained significant interpretations of the Constitution or other laws and to make them “publicly available to the greatest extent practicable.” We believe this language, along with statements from Members of Congress during the debate, clearly require the FISC to release decisions both from before 2015 as well as after. . . .

California, District Court, Edward Snowden, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Freedom of Information Act Requests, Government Transparency, Law, Lawsuits, National Security, National Security Agency, Phone Records, Privacy, Secret Law, Surveillance, USA Freedom Act

Spies in the Skies: See Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching From Above

4/6/2016

BuzzFeed News April 6, 2016, at 2:46 p.m. ET
Peter Aldhous, Charles Seife

Each weekday, dozens of U.S. government aircraft take to the skies and slowly circle over American cities. Piloted by agents of the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the planes are fitted with high-resolution video cameras, often working with “augmented reality” software that can superimpose onto the video images everything from street and business names to the owners of individual homes. At least a few planes have carried devices that can track the cell phones of people below. Most of the aircraft are small, flying a mile or so above ground, and many use exhaust mufflers to mute their engines — making them hard to detect by the people they’re spying on.

The government’s airborne surveillance has received little public scrutiny — until now. BuzzFeed News has assembled an unprecedented picture of the operation’s scale and sweep by analyzing aircraft location data collected by the flight-tracking website Flightradar24 from mid-August to the end of December last year, iden, tifying about 200 federal aircraft. Day after day, dozens of these planes circled above cities across the nation. . . .

American Civil Liberties Union, Augmented Reality, Border Security, Cell-Site Simulators, Cell Phones, Department of Homeland Security, Drug Smuggling, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Flightradar24, Human Trafficking, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Law Enforcement, Muslims, Planes, Privacy, Stingrays, Surveillance, Warrants, Video Cameras

IN THE NEWS

Private Surveillance Is a Lethal Weapon Anybody Can Buy: Is it too late to rein it in?

Law Enforcement Access [to Medical Records]

National Security and Medical Information

Coalition Letter on Reauthorization of Patriot Act's Section 215

Court Denies EFF Effort to Obtain Classified Significant Surveillance Court Opinions

Spies in the Skies: See Maps Showing Where FBI Planes Are Watching From Above

NEWS and publications

Archives

Categories

Disclaimer: Targeted America is not a law firm. The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter.

This website is best viewed on a computer or laptop.