Bluetooth hearing aids in secure facilities

Some CIC are available with NO bluetooth. If it has any Bluetooth capability (even just for adjusting volume or settings) it will not be permitted in most secure facilities.

The security office where he works should be able to advise him about this

In 2020 Two Men in California Sued over this and Won as its against the Americans with Disabilities Act law passed in 1990 if you look under “Requiring Reasonable Accommodations”.The ADA does not require one to disclose wearing HA.Only a Penile Implant will require notification in secure facilities.LOL!

Could you cite the suit? It seems unlikely it applies to national security situations, but I am curious.

I have a list of HAs which SSOs are allowed to approve certain ones, and others forbidden. It covers other medical devices as well. Each situation, device, facility, user, etc is unique and would require approval by the SSO of that facility. The list is controlled information, so I can’t share it.

WH

You can- but I suspect left and right HA will still engage in wireless communication, no?

They would communicate, but you would have to ask Phonak what frequencies. They could not do any kind of file transfer with any other device.

This just came up again at our facility. A request was made for a reasonable accomodation for a phonak lumity for an employee. After review it was determined the risks were not acceptable and the need did not override the risk to national security. The request was denied and alternative options offered.

Basic reasons without going into much detail- the design of having an always ‘on’ microphone that does digitally processes all speech heard, the wireless functionality even if disabled, ultimately the vulnerabilities that could be seized upon by a bad actor.

Not in matters of national security. They can say no if they are unwilling to accept the risk of having any potentially electromagnetically active device which hasn’t been thoroughly tested and approved. They don’t want to risk being involved in an incident and lose their job.

An example of a bad outcome is the pagers and two way radios in Lebanon recently. Things sneak in. And detecting those things can be extremely difficult. Maybe impossible to detect before the exposure. We can’t even take in active car key fobs. My simple Prius fob has to stay outside the door.

WH

Sorry btrauma ,but just because you keep saying that does not make it true.
You mentioned a court case but did not offer a link .

These cases are complicated, and just because one or more persons in california won a case, (the land of lawsuits over anything and everything ) only means that a civil court ruled that “a company” ( not the fed) had to pay compensation over “something”

The courts cannot force the fed to allow anything that the fed deems violates “national security”.

I am so glad that i retired before all of the issues about Bluetooth and security became an issue. But I did have an issue that my company send me to a job site that was top secret for which i had with spades. I was at first refused entrance because I wore hearing aids. My aids were without any type of connectivity and not even any controls. My manager informed the group that i was there to help that it was either me or no one else. The company tried to tell me I couldn’t wear my aids, I said that isn’t happening due to my dependency on my aids, and I also pointed out the disability laws. There was a lot of back and forth but in the end I was allowed to go in and fix their email server. The fighting back an forth took almost 72 hours of the company being down email wise and once I was allowed in I fixed it in less than an hour. When i did my report the company was charged for 80 hours of my time. If there hadn’t been so much BS it would have saved them properly a hundred thousand dollars.
I fully understand security, I was a member of 3 President’s security teams, in charge of crypto communications, as well as all other secure communications and protection.