this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2024
202 points (99.5% liked)

News

23296 readers
4218 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A woman in Attleboro takes an at-home test and finds out she’s pregnant. She looks up nearby reproductive health clinics and finds one: Four Women Health Services, which has also been providing abortions for decades. She sends a request through an online chat on Four Women’s website to set up an ultrasound appointment. 

Less than half an hour later, she receives a call to schedule an appointment and books one.

But the person who just called her doesn’t work for Four Women. They called to book her an appointment at the center across the street: Attleboro Women’s Health Center, or Abundant Hope.

That’s what allegedly happened last October. Four Women is now suing in federal court, alleging that at least four potential patients apparently had their messages intercepted by Attleboro Women’s Health Center — an entity that is not a licensed health care facility and does not provide abortions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 4 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I hope CMS works with the clinic to improve information handling, rather than fining it out of existence.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Are you saying the clinic that illegally intercepted communication that wasn't meant for them and wouldn't have provided ALL info and options should get a pat on the wrist, rather than receive punishment for deceitful actions?

I know where I stand and it should be fined out of existence for pushing its christo-fascist bullshit.

[–] QBertReynolds@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Well, one is a clinic and the other isn't a licensed health care facility at all, so I think OP was expressing worry that the abortion clinic would be fined out of existence for HIPAA violations related to not properly securing patient data.

[–] HikingVet@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The way I read it was that the patient was deceived by a website put up by the "not clinic". It's a recognised tactic that they use.

[–] QBertReynolds@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

That's not at all what the article says. These women went to the actual Four Women's Health Services website, filled out a form, and were contacted by someone who didn't work at Four Women's to schedule an appointment elsewhere.

Edit: In the article, their lawyer says, "AWHC’s outreach to Four Women’s patients appears to be the result of their unlawful infiltration of Four Women’s electronic platforms." Later in the article, a spokesperson for the EFF says what's more likely is that an employee is intentionally leaking data. Either way, there's no indication that this is the result of pregnant women being duped by a website.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

In IT systems that I've been a part of that manage HIPAA data, there are access controls and audit trails required for compliance. The fact that the victims are receiving calls within mere hours of posting the request should make a very short audit trail. What will turn up is either the perpetrator's user account, or possibly a non-related worker that had compromised account credentials (username/password). Even then it will show access from a specific IP address, and that IP address can be audited back to which piece of hardware (desktop, laptop, tablet) had that IP address at that time. From that point there are cameras and timeclock tracking.

Since this has happened more than once, it is unlikely the exact same staff has been working at the same time for all the recorded incidents of leaks. Its a process of elimination problem at that point. Example using fake names of workers:

Leak 1 workers:

  • Brie
  • Noah
  • Fatima
  • Dennis

Leak 2 workers:

  • Noah
  • Fatima
  • Dennis
  • Maria

Leak 3 workers:

  • Brie
  • Dennis
  • Maria
  • Sofia

Leak 4 workers:

  • Dennis
  • Maria
  • Sofia
  • Miguel

The leaker is Dennis as he is the only worker that was there on all 4 shifts when the request came in.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)