DataBreaches.Net

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

Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Announces Data Breach Notification Mandate

Posted on August 27, 2010 by Dissent

Joseph Lazzarotti of Jackson Lewis writes:

On August 18, 2010, the Connecticut Insurance Commissioner issued Bulletin IC-25 which mandates that entities within its jurisdiction notify the Department of Insurance of any “information security incident.” This post provides a brief summary of this new requirement.

[…]

What is an “information security incident”?

Under this Bulletin, an information security incident is:

any unauthorized acquisition or transfer of, or access to, personal health, financial, or personal information, whether or not encrypted, of a Connecticut insured, member, subscriber, policyholder or provider, in whatever form the information is collected, used or stored, which is obtained or maintained by a licensee or registrant of the Insurance Department, the loss of which could compromise or put at risk the personal, financial, or physical well being of the affected insureds, members, subscribers, policyholders or providers.

Thus, unlike the general Connecticut data breach notification statute which requires notification only with respect to computerized personal information, this mandate applies to paper documents which includes personal health, financial or personal information. Also, encrypted data is not exempt from this notification requirement.

Read more about the new bulletin on  Workplace Privacy Data Management & Security Report.  The state is now requiring covered entities to provide them with a lot of detailed information to the state within five (5) calendar days after a breach is identified.

Obviously, I’m delighted to  see the inclusion of paper records and the absence of a “significant harm” threshold.    Without knowing the history of this bulletin,  I might guess that it is,  at least in part, a reaction to a number of breaches by health insurers where neither the state nor residents were promptly notified of a breach and where the state’s attorney general investigated the breaches and insisted that the insurers offer credit monitoring services, etc.

That said, this situation also highlights the patchwork quality of regulations and statutes even with one state, much less between states.    Can you hear me now, Congress?


Related:

  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
  • Confidence in ransomware recovery is high but actual success rates remain low
  • 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
  • Bombay High Court Orders Department of Telecommunications to Block Medusa Accounts After Generali Insurance Data Breach
  • Cyber-Attack On Bectu’s Parent Union Sparks UK National Security Concerns
Category: Breach LawsCommentaries and AnalysesOf Note

Post navigation

← The Rite Aid Scandal: Health Records Still Treated as Commodities
Info privacy still lags in India: Deloitte →

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

  • District of Massachusetts Allows Higher-Ed Student Data Breach Claims to Survive
  • End of the game for cybercrime infrastructure: 1025 servers taken down
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs
  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says

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

  • As shoplifting surges, British retailers roll out ‘invasive’ facial recognition tools
  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation

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.