DataBreaches.Net

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

Fujitsu Consulting first notifying people of July 2008 breach (commentary)

Posted on April 9, 2009 by Dissent

When a package containing an electronic storage device was lost in transit between Fujitsu Consulting offices in New York City and Montreal by an overnight courier on July 28, 2008, the unnamed courier service and law enforcement were immediately notified. It is only now, however, that 3,410 individuals associated with Travelers Insurance Company are being notified that their names and Social Security numbers were on the lost device. It is not clear from available reports whether the individuals are employees or consumers. Nor is it clear how many other companies and individuals may be affected by the data loss.

According to a notification (pdf) letter sent to the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office by their lawyers on April 2nd, “The device lost had information from many information technology projects.” Neither Fijitsu’s attorneys nor their media relations department have responded to an inquiry as to how many clients had data on the lost device and how much of it was personally identifiable information.

Eight months to reconstruct what was on the device and to notify those affected? That seems unacceptably long by current standards, even though there may be no current laws requiring faster notification. Fijutsu’s lawyer explains, “Since the loss of that data. Fujitsu has been diligently combing through the data for instances of sensitive personal information.” Diligence is fine. Indeed, it’s necessary, but there is also a timeliness factor. If our federal government ever gets around to passing a data breach notification law with teeth, hopefully they will include some time frame such as that included in the recently passed stimulus bill for PHI-related breaches, which states:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (g), all notifications required under this section shall be made without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after the discovery of a breach by the covered entity involved (or business associate involved in the case of a notification required under subsection (b)).

Neither Fijitsu nor Travelers have responded to requests for additional information about this incident, leaving me wondering how many other people may first discover in weeks to come that their data were lost last summer.


Related:

  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
  • Toys “R” Us Canada customers notified of breach of personal information
  • Gatineau gymnastics centre warns members of possible data breach
  • Data breach in 42 Latvian municipalities: DVI imposes 300,000 euro fine on ZZ Dats
  • Protected health information of 462,000 members of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana involved in Conduent data breach
  • Resource: NY DFS Issues New Cybersecurity Guidance to Address Risks Associated with the Use of Third-Party Service Providers
Category: Breach IncidentsBusiness SectorLost or MissingSubcontractorU.S.

Post navigation

← Ca: City playing with personal information?
Bits ‘n Pieces →

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

  • CrowdStrike catches insider feeding information to ScatteredLapsus$Hunters
  • Two suspected Scattered Spider hackers plead not guilty over Transport for London cyberattack
  • Attleboro investigating ‘cybersecurity incident’ impacting city’s IT systems
  • Fired techie admits sabotaging ex-employer, causing $862K in damage
  • Threat actors have reportedly launched yet another campaign involving an application connected to Salesforce
  • Russian hackers target IVF clinics across UK used by thousands of couples
  • US, allies sanction Russian bulletproof hosting services for ransomware support
  • Researchers claim ‘largest leak ever’ after uncovering WhatsApp enumeration flaw
  • Large medical lab in South Africa suffers multiple data breaches
  • Report released on PowerSchool cyber attack

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

  • Cole v. Quest Diagnostics: The Third Circuit Weighs in on Pixels, Privacy, and Medical Data
  • Closing the Privacy Gap: HIPRA Targets Health Apps and Wearables
  • Researchers claim ‘largest leak ever’ after uncovering WhatsApp enumeration flaw
  • CIPL Publishes Discussion Paper Comparing U.S. State Privacy Law Definitions of Personal Data and Sensitive Data
  • India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 brought into force

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[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.