Privacy Policy for www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/
If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at kangbri.sikbri@gmail.com.
At www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/ and how it is used.
Log Files
Like many other Web sites, www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/ makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.
Cookies and Web Beacons
www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/ does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.
DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/ and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html
Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense
These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/ send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.
www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/ has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.
You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. www.vermont-universal-health.blogspot.com/'s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.
If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label privacy. Show all posts
Monday, March 14, 2011
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
US Supreme Court to Review Employee Privacy Issues
The US Supreme Court has granted certiorari in a case involving the application of the constitutional right to informational privacy to an employee questionnaire. NASA, et al. v. Nelson, Robert M., et al. No. 09-530, March 8, 2010.
The Supreme Court will be reviewing a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision involving contract employees of the Jet PropulsionLaboratory (JPL) who filed suit against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and others. The suit claims that contract employees in non-sensitive or “low risk” positions should not be required to submit to in-depth background investigations.
The Circuit Court below held:
We have repeatedly acknowledged that the Constitution protects an “individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 958 (9th Cir.1999). This interest covers a wide range of personal matters, including sexual activity, Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 726 F.2d 459 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that questioning police applicant about her prior sexual activity violated her right to informational privacy), medical information,Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir.1998) (“The constitutionally protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters clearly encompasses medical information and its confidentiality.”), and financial matters, Crawford, 194 F.3d at 958 (agreeing that public disclosure of social security numbers may implicate the right to informational privacy in “an era of rampant identity theft”). If the government's actions compel disclosure of private information, it “has the burden of showing that its use of the information would advance a legitimate state interest and that its actions are narrowly tailored to meet the legitimate interest.” Crawford, 194 F.3d at 959 (internal quotation marks omitted). We must “balance the government's interest in having or using the information against the individual's interest in denying access,” Doe v. Att'y Gen., 941 F.2d 780, 796 (9th Cir.1991), weighing, among other things:
“the type of [information] requested, ... the potential for harm in any subsequent nonconsensual disclosure, ... the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized*878 disclosure, the degree of need for access, and whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognizable public interest militating towards access.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 578 (3d Cir.1980)) (alteration in original).
Both the SF 85 questionnaire and the Form 42 written inquiries require the disclosure of personal information and each presents a ripe controversy."
".....The balance of hardships tips sharply toward Appellants, who face a stark choice-either violation of their constitutional rights or loss of their jobs. The district court erroneously concluded that Appellants will not suffer any irreparable harm because they could be retroactively compensated for any temporary denial of employment. It is true that “monetary injury is not normally considered irreparable,” L.A. Mem'l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat'l Football League, 634 F.2d 1197, 1202 (9th Cir.1980), and the JPL employees who choose to give up their jobs may later be made whole financially if the policy is struck down. "
The Supreme Court will be reviewing a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision involving contract employees of the Jet PropulsionLaboratory (JPL) who filed suit against the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and others. The suit claims that contract employees in non-sensitive or “low risk” positions should not be required to submit to in-depth background investigations.
The Circuit Court below held:
We have repeatedly acknowledged that the Constitution protects an “individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.” In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 958 (9th Cir.1999). This interest covers a wide range of personal matters, including sexual activity, Thorne v. City of El Segundo, 726 F.2d 459 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that questioning police applicant about her prior sexual activity violated her right to informational privacy), medical information,Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab., 135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir.1998) (“The constitutionally protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters clearly encompasses medical information and its confidentiality.”), and financial matters, Crawford, 194 F.3d at 958 (agreeing that public disclosure of social security numbers may implicate the right to informational privacy in “an era of rampant identity theft”). If the government's actions compel disclosure of private information, it “has the burden of showing that its use of the information would advance a legitimate state interest and that its actions are narrowly tailored to meet the legitimate interest.” Crawford, 194 F.3d at 959 (internal quotation marks omitted). We must “balance the government's interest in having or using the information against the individual's interest in denying access,” Doe v. Att'y Gen., 941 F.2d 780, 796 (9th Cir.1991), weighing, among other things:
“the type of [information] requested, ... the potential for harm in any subsequent nonconsensual disclosure, ... the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized*878 disclosure, the degree of need for access, and whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognizable public interest militating towards access.”
Id. (quoting United States v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 638 F.2d 570, 578 (3d Cir.1980)) (alteration in original).
Both the SF 85 questionnaire and the Form 42 written inquiries require the disclosure of personal information and each presents a ripe controversy."
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
HIPPA Privacy Modifications Under Presidential Emergency H1N1 Flu Order
Under the emergency declaration for H1N1 flu signed by President Obama on October 24, 2009, the HIPPA Privacy rule is not waived according to Federal HHS interpretation; however, "the Secretary of HHS may waive certain provisions of the Rule under the Project Bioshield Act of 2004 (PL 108-276) and section 1135(b)(7) of the Social Security Act."
Those modifications are:
"If the President declares an emergency or disaster and the Secretary declares a public health emergency, the Secretary may waive sanctions and penalties against a covered hospital that does not comply with certain provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule:
1. In the emergency area and for the emergency period identified in the public health emergency declaration.
Those modifications are:
"If the President declares an emergency or disaster and the Secretary declares a public health emergency, the Secretary may waive sanctions and penalties against a covered hospital that does not comply with certain provisions of the HIPAA Privacy Rule:
- the requirements to obtain a patient's agreement to speak with family members or friends involved in the patient’s care (45 CFR 164.510(b))
- the requirement to honor a request to opt out of the facility directory (45 CFR 164.510(a))
- the requirement to distribute a notice of privacy practices (45 CFR 164.520)
- the patient's right to request privacy restrictions (45 CFR 164.522(a))
- the patient's right to request confidential communications (45 CFR 164.522(b))
1. In the emergency area and for the emergency period identified in the public health emergency declaration.
2. To hospitals that have instituted a disaster protocol. The waiver would apply to all patients at such hospitals.
3. For up to 72 hours from the time the hospital implements its disaster protocol.
"When the Presidential or Secretarial declaration terminates, a hospital must then comply with all the requirements of the Privacy Rule for any patient still under its care, even if 72 hours has not elapsed since implementation of its disaster protocol.
"Regardless of the activation of an emergency waiver, the HIPAA Privacy Rule permits disclosures for treatment purposes and certain disclosures to disaster relief organizations. For instance, the Privacy Rule allows covered entities to share patient information with the American Red Cross so it can notify family members of the patient’s location. See 45 CFR 164.510(b)(4)."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)