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.

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

  • Washington Post investigating cyberattack on journalists, WSJ reports
  • Resource: State Data Breach Notification Laws – June 2025
  • WestJet investigates cyberattack disrupting internal systems
  • Plastic surgeons often store nude photos of patients with their identity information. When would we call that “negligent?”
  • India: Servers of two city hospitals hacked; police register FIR
  • Ph: Coop Hospital confirms probe into reported cyberattack
  • Slapped wrists for Financial Conduct Authority staff who emailed work data home
  • School Districts Unaware BoardDocs Software Published Their Private Files
  • A guilty plea in the PowerSchool case still leaves unanswered questions
  • Brussels Parliament hit by 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

  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe
  • Would you — or wouldn’t you?
  • New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
  • Synthetic Data and the Illusion of Privacy: Legal Risks of Using De-Identified AI Training Sets
  • States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe

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.