DataBreaches.Net

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

Clarifying CT's new Insurance Bulletin reporting requirement

Posted on September 14, 2010 by Dissent

The new bulletin from the Connecticut Insurance Commission, mentioned here, had left me a tad confused, so I wrote to them:

Re the definition of a security incident:

“The Department considers an information security incident to be 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.”

It seems that encryption is not an exclusion or safe harbor, but later it says “the loss of which could compromise or put at risk…” Is there actually a “risk of harm” standard here? Since many people would argue that the loss of encrypted data does not put people at risk, the definition of a reportable incident seems a bit self-contradictory. Can you clarify: do ALL incidents have to be reported if they meet the definition of “personal information” and involve a covered entity or only those where there is some assessment/determination that the loss would compromise or put at risk… ?

Today I received an answer from their legal counsel that said:

Yes – all incidents have to be reported.

How nice to have a simple rule.

Category: Uncategorized

Post navigation

← OK: New law prevents storage of newborn blood samples
Editorial: Drug database access needs tight controls →

2 thoughts on “Clarifying CT's new Insurance Bulletin reporting requirement”

  1. Anonymous says:
    September 14, 2010 at 8:21 am

    Thanks very much for getting a definitive answer to this. I was wondering the very same thing. So nice to get a straight answer.

    1. Anonymous says:
      September 14, 2010 at 11:56 am

      You’re welcome, Chris.

      Maybe you and I should offer our services as beta-testers for proposed new breach notification regulations. If we can’t figure them out, they might benefit from re-writing.

Comments are closed.

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

  • 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
  • Sweden under cyberattack: Prime minister sounds the alarm
  • Former CIA Analyst Sentenced to Over Three Years in Prison for Unlawfully Transmitting Top Secret National Defense Information
  • FIN6 cybercriminals pose as job seekers on LinkedIn to hack recruiters
  • Dutch police identify users on Cracked.io
  • Help, please: Seeking copies of the PowerSchool ransom email(s)

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

  • 23andMe Privacy Ombudsman Urges User Consent Pre-Data Sale
  • The Meta AI app is a privacy disaster – TechCrunch
  • Apple fixes new iPhone zero-day bug used in Paragon spyware hacks
  • Norwegian Data Protection Authority’s findings on tracking pixels: 6 cases
  • Multiple States Enact Genetic Privacy Legislation in a Busy Start to 2025
  • Rules Proposed Under New Jersey Data Privacy Act
  • Using facial recognition? Three recent articles of interest.

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.