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.

No related posts.

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

  • Qantas customers involved in mammoth data breach
  • CMS Sending Letters to 103,000 Medicare beneficiaries whose info was involved in a Medicare.gov breach.
  • Esse Health provides update about April cyberattack and notifies 263,601 people
  • Terrible tales of opsec oversights: How cybercrooks get themselves caught
  • International Criminal Court hit with cyber attack during NATO summit
  • Pembroke Regional Hospital reported canceling appointments due to service delays from “an incident”
  • Iran-linked hackers threaten to release emails allegedly stolen from Trump associates
  • National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
  • Swiss Health Foundation Radix Hit by Cyberattack Affecting Federal Data
  • Russian hackers get 7 and 5 years in prison for large-scale cyber attacks with ransomware, over 60 million euros in bitcoins seized

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

  • The Trump administration is building a national citizenship data system
  • Supreme Court Decision on Age Verification Tramples Free Speech and Undermines Privacy
  • New Jersey Issues Draft Privacy Regulations: The New
  • Hacker helped kill FBI sources, witnesses in El Chapo case, according to watchdog report
  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina

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.