Patriot act update 2010

Unfortunately the results of this Join EFF Lists. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Podcast Episode News Update by Kevin Bankston. Email updates on news, actions, events in your area, and more. Email Address. Postal Code optional. Anti-spam question: Enter the three-letter abbreviation for Electronic Frontier Foundation :.

This Section also requires U. Allows the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations governing maintenance of concentration accounts by financial institutions to ensure such accounts are not used to obscure the identity of the customer who is the direct or beneficial owner of the funds being moved through the account.

Prescribes regulations establishing minimum standards for financial institutions and their customers regarding the identity of a customer that shall apply with the opening of an account at the financial institution. This Section expands immunity from liability for reporting suspicious activities and expands prohibition against notification to individuals of SAR filing.

No officer or employee of federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial governments within the U. It did the same for collections under the National Security Letters provision, as well as forcing the government to request permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The court was also instructed to make its major decisions public.

The Act was due to expire in , but Donald Trump asked Congress to make three provisions of the Act permanent. Congress instead reauthorized the Act for three months. The legislature then agreed on reauthorization in March , however, Trump threatened to veto it, which led to the indefinite postponement of the Senate's version of the bill. In , four years after the first Act was signed into law, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a page letter to bill co-author Sen.

Dianne Feinstein, detailing the abuses taking place under the law. One part of that letter read:. The Patriot Act 'updated' surveillance powers - but failed to 'update' the checks and balances needed to ensure those surveillance powers include proper judicial oversight. President Barack Obama has maintained that Section was useful in conducting terrorist investigations, as do others:. But that sentiment doesn't completely square with the conclusions drawn by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board when they reviewed the program the year after Edward Snowden's revelations:.

We have not identified a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference in the outcome of a counterterrorism investigation. Moreover, we are aware of no instance in which the program directly contributed to the discovery of a previously unknown terrorist plot or the disruption of a terrorist attack. They also said there was only a single case where the program contributed to the identity of a previously unknown terrorist subject, in which the subject was not planning a terrorist attack and there was 'reason' to think the FBI would have uncovered him, regardless.

Advanced Persistent Threat. The Patriot Act has proven to be one of the biggest threats to the privacy of US citizens over the past two decades. Despite starting life as a response to a horrific terrorist atrocity couched in the desire to protect, the provisions have fundamentally changed American citizens' attitudes to government surveillance as well as their own personal privacy.

The two key takeaways from the last two decades, in light of the fact the last sunset provisions expired this year, are as follows: The first is that despite the provisions expiring, it's unlikely that this is the last we'll see of the Patriot Act or legislation inspired by it.

The second is that the Patriot Act, as intrusive as it is, has been merely one of many statutes that US law enforcement agencies have relied upon during the 21st century to surveil its citizens.

What makes syndromic surveillance unique from other systems is the indicator data types used to collect health information.

The data types used in syndromic systems include "events that might precede a clinical diagnosis e. Although the public and the healthcare community are concerned about public health authorities having access to a patient's medical record, in most cases the health information used in syndromic systems is deidentified when transmitted to an outside source. The collection of health data is intended to collect clusters of cases, not individual cases.

Whether a fine line or an abyss exists between respecting the privacy of individual health information and protecting the public from bioterrorism depends on perspective. One fundamental challenge for many healthcare organizations is deciding whether the gap between personal privacy and national security is small or large and how it can be bridged. Several initiatives show promise for surveillance on the national level while remaining considerate of individual privacy.

Public health officials have historically leveraged surveillance systems to identify outbreaks and monitor disease activity among communities. The challenges associated with implementing broader surveillance systems include inadequate infrastructure, data integration barriers due to lack of standards, deficient understanding of public health informatics, and funding. Some resistance to a national syndromic surveillance system could arise from groups already heavily invested in developing alternate solutions.

Many states and counties already have committed significant time and resources to developing surveillance systems that serve citizens within their boundaries. This independent activity has generated many impressive public health surveillance systems, albeit in a somewhat federated fashion.

However, these federated surveillance systems often cannot share data because of a lack of standards. The resulting data-sharing roadblocks are found at all levels of technology and consist of incompatible hardware, software versions that do not talk to each other, and inconsistent data definitions, to name a few.

Data quality presents another challenge in implementing public health surveillance. In many instances in healthcare facilities, a nonclinician may enter the admitting diagnosis before the patient is assessed by a licensed independent practitioner, and the clinical relevance of the data may be questionable. Data inaccuracy in syndromic surveillance systems becomes an obstacle to wholesale adoption of such systems if user comfort levels with the quality of the data are not satisfactory.

Public health information systems can deliver valuable information for national security efforts without compromising patient privacy. Although the nation's capacity to respond to bioterrorism may depend on further development of surveillance systems, there are many diverse efforts trying to balance individual privacy with protection of the public health.

Syndromic surveillance systems likely will evolve as obstacles are overcome, standards are created, and the public accepts and supports the cost of adopting such a system. In addition, they should know which members of their organizations are responsible for mandatory reporting and work collaboratively to effectively identify, obtain, and release information to the appropriate authorities.

No single department can work alone in this area, since the information that is obtained occurs during registration specific demographics , during the course of treatment clustering of signs and symptoms that could potentially cause a threat to the public at large , and at the time of discharge identifying key diagnoses. Component state associations CSAs should take a strong role in shaping the development of public health systems for required reporting.

These acts offer CSA leaders the opportunity to work with other associations and agencies such as a state hospital association, department of health, or long-term care licensing agency with an interest in reviewing required reporting rules and integrating new requirements into systems as they are identified.

State hospital associations may be a good place to identify rule makers within the state. In most states, the department of health is given the authority to establish mandatory reporting programs; in some instances, special commissions have been established to monitor this function. Other state agencies that are likely to be involved include departments of health and human services, state bureaus of investigation, and separate registries, if established by the state government.

The HIM professional's knowledge of data management, reporting processes, coded data, and patient privacy and confidentiality requirements provide a needed resource to state agencies.

Even with sophisticated electronic reporting systems, information managers are needed to organize information and turn data into knowledge. HIM professionals and CSAs have an obligation to offer and apply their knowledge and abilities to this process.