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:

  • I called American Income Life Insurance to alert them to a data breach involving 150,000 customers. Here's why they didn't find out.
  • Kept in the Dark -- Meet the Hired Guns Who Make Sure School Cyberattacks Stay Hidden
  • Obama's federal data breach notification bill: boon to businesses, but not most consumers
  • Breach notifications needed to be made faster in 2024. Instead, they were made more slowly.
  • Updates to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Cybersecurity Requirements
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

  • Russian Ransomware Administrator Pleads Guilty to Wire Fraud Conspiracy
  • LeakBase seized, arrests made as part of global action
  • Coruna: The Mysterious Journey of a Powerful iOS Exploit Kit
  • 1,700 Dutch police officers get reminder not to access files without legitimate purpose
  • Israeli spies ‘hacked every traffic camera in Tehran to plot killing of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’
  • Congress finds data brokers cost consumers tens of billions of dollars
  • Evoke Wellness at Hilliard updates its breach notification
  • Data from Insight Hospital and Medical Center Leaked on Dark Web
  • Wisconsin k-12 district hit by weeklong outage
  • Project Compass: first operational results against The Com network

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

  • Allstate must face privacy lawsuit over cellphone tracking of drivers
  • Spain fines FC Barcelona €500,000 for failing biometric data protection assessment
  • Polish doctors jailed for denying woman abortion
  • France’s Highest Administrative Court Upholds CNIL’s Standard On Anonymization
  • Dutch police reminded not to snoop in files without legitimate purpose

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: Dissent.73

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[at]databreaches.net
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: Dissent.73
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.