In unique #privacy ruling, Israeli court holds that requiring nursing caregivers to remotely login for work (from patient location) using cellular location-based system (GPS data) contradicts constitutionally protected privacy right of treated patients. 1/6
2
6
5
6
Curious how the patient’s address, which is collected (presumably) to facilitate the actual care, is viewed? Or is the difference that one is consented to, and the other is not?
1
Good question. There isn't a clear description of services in the verdict, but from my knowledge of these services, there is typically a designated caregiver to a specific patient, so they directly coordinate a daily place of meeting without necessarily updating a general admin.
1
2
My security brain wonders what happens if the care giver goes missing? There isn’t a known location to begin a search and recording the location violates the patient’s privacy. Seems to be a safety issue?
1
I don't see a problem. Just as with any other missing person, police can get access to cell data. The decision is only that the location data isn't sent to the employer (and Mod supervisors) at the beginning of each work day /session as part of employee's remote login.
1
1
Replying to @didi_melchior @mdennedy
An employer has an obligation to keep their employees safe. Sending employees to an unknown location heightens risk and seems reckless. Here’s advice from NIOSH: “Always let your employer know your location and when to expect you to report back.” cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2012-118/…

Jul 26, 2019 · 4:53 AM UTC

1
Replying to @bilcorry @mdennedy
It was never intended to be a security measure, rather supervision that work is actually done. Caregiver typically always serves the same patient (not unknown), and they coordinate the daily meeting place. Ruling doesn't prevent caregiver from updating employer at will.
1
1
Thank you for clarifying. It’s interesting that the privacy violation occurs when the employer requires location, but not when the employee freely offers it.
1
1
more replies