DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

OCR explains why it shielded names on published breach list

Posted on February 24, 2010 by Dissent

This week, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began posting summaries of breach reports it has received as newly mandated by the HITECH Act.

In commenting on the breaches, this site observed that some breaches simply stated “Private Practice” instead of the name of the breached entity. Because the intent of the breach disclosure and notification requirements in HITECH was that breaches would be disclosed to the media AND to HHS who would post information on their site, such shielding seemed inappropriate and inconsistent with both the statute and intent of Congress.

In response to an inquiry from this site as to why OCR had shielded entities’ names that way, OCR sent the following statement:

The Privacy Act of 1974, at 5 U.S.C. 552a, protects records that can be retrieved by personal identifiers such as a name, social security number, or other identifying number or symbol. Therefore, OCR cannot disclose the names or other identifying information about private practitioners without their written consent.

Oh really? Even if Congress enacted legislation to mandate just that? Why did Rick Lawson have his name listed as an involved Business Associate for one breach, but a private practitioner does not have his or her name listed? And how can the public be aware of which covered entities might place their data at risk if names are shielded? OCR’s approach or application of the Privacy Act seems to give greater protection from reputational harm to covered entities who do business under their own names than to covered entities who have corporate names.

Although I genuinely appreciate OCR’s prompt reply, I am not satisfied with their response nor with the fact that their summaries do not include important information such as the type of records exposed in each breach. As a result, I have written to them again and have also reached out to some other organizations that are concerned about transparency and the intent of Congress in enacting HITECH. Expect to see more about this issue on this site at some point.

Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← Tennessee: No evidence stolen personal information being used, BlueCross says
The Cost Of A Breach, Heartland Style: At Least $129 Million; Might Be $229 Million →

2 thoughts on “OCR explains why it shielded names on published breach list”

  1. Anonymous says:
    February 25, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Interesting that the dentists, Ashley and Grey, were mentioned by name. I guess they don’t have the same clout as the physicians.

    1. Anonymous says:
      February 25, 2010 at 12:47 pm

      I wonder if they incorporated or are LLC or something. If it’s their business name, OCR may have felt that they had to use it.

      Advantage to those who don’t incorporate?

Comments are closed.

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • New evidence links long-running hacking group to Indian government
  • Zaporizhzhia Cyber ​​Police Exposes Hacker Who Caused Millions in Losses to Victims by Mining Cryptocurrency
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Google: Hackers target Salesforce accounts in data extortion attacks
  • The US Grid Attack Looming on the Horizon
  • US govt login portal could be one cyberattack away from collapse, say auditors
  • Two Men Sentenced to Prison for Aggravated Identity Theft and Computer Hacking Crimes
  • 100,000 UK taxpayer accounts hit in £47m phishing attack on HMRC
  • CISA Alert: Updated Guidance on Play Ransomware
  • Almost one year later, U.S. Dermatology Partners is still not being very transparent about their 2024 breach

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • How the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Malaysia enacts data sharing rules for public sector
  • U.S. Enacts Take It Down Act
  • 23andMe Bankruptcy Judge Ponders Trump Bill’s Injunction Impact
  • Hell No: The ODNI Wants to Make it Easier for the Government to Buy Your Data Without Warrant
  • US State Dept. says silence or anonymity on social media is suspicious

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.