DataBreaches.Net

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

Data Breach Investigation | Constitutionality | Arbitrary, Capricious?

Posted on September 22, 2010 by Dissent

Benjamin Wright is an attorney who teaches e-discovery, data security and cyber investigations law at the SANS Institute. In commenting on the recent matter of Lucile Salter Packard Hospital being fined for not notifying patients within 5 days of confirming that PHI were on a stolen computer, Wright states:

Yet I will say that it is irresponsible for data holders to issue breach notices before they have concluded a true breach has occurred. Unnecessary notices inflict angst and confusion on data subjects. A mere security vulnerability is not a breach.

To distinguish between a vulnerability and a breach often requires deliberation. Deliberation can require painstaking collection of facts, coordination with multiple parties such as law enforcement and careful review of the facts, often with input from multiple learned parties, such as outside experts.

Although I understand his point, the definition of what constitutes a reportable breach (as opposed to a vulnerability) would be seem to be defined by the state’s statute. If a breach is defined as “unauthorized acquisition of computerized data that compromises the security, confidentiality, or integrity of personal information maintained by the person or business” then the theft of equipment containing such information would seem to this non-lawyer to constitute a breach, not a vulnerability.

He continues:

The California Legislature made clear it wants notices to be issued quickly. However, the law should not be interpreted to require rash decision-making. If the law is interpreted as a hair-trigger requirement for notices before a competent investigation can be concluded, then I question the constitutionality of the law. That interpretation would render the law arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, in conflict with the need for due process under the US Constitution.

Well, now I’m totally confused, as I thought states could regulate businesses and set rules and deadlines — and consequences under its authority. If a state decides that it’s in the interests of its residents that they be notified within 5 days if an entity has determined that their personal information has been stolen — even if the information is subsequently recovered — then where’s the constitutional issue?

I would love to see him expand his argument because although I have previously expressed my own reservations about the 5-day deadline, my concern was not a constitutional one per se.

You can read his entire column on IT Policy | Audit | Investigate Cyber Crime

The hospital has appealed the fine.

Category: Health Data

Post navigation

← UK: IT manager at Hull PCT pleads guilty in snooping charges
Stolen Ault Chiropractic Center computers contained patient info →

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

  • After $1 Million Ransom Demand, Virgin Islands Lottery Restores Operations Without Paying Hackers
  • Junior Defence Contractor Arrested For Leaking Indian Naval Secrets To Suspected Pakistani Spies
  • Mysterious leaker GangExposed outs Conti kingpins in massive ransomware data dump
  • Resource: HoganLovells Asia-Pacific Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Guide 2025
  • Class action settlement following ransomware attack will cost Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center about $52 million
  • Comstar LLC agrees to corrective action plan and fine to settle HHS OCR charges
  • Australian ransomware victims now must tell the government if they pay up
  • U.S. Sanctions Cloud Provider ‘Funnull’ as Top Source of ‘Pig Butchering’ Scams
  • Victoria’s Secret takes down website after security incident
  • U.S. Government Employee Arrested for Attempting to Provide Classified Information to Foreign Government

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

  • Fears Grow Over ICE’s Reach Into Schools
  • Resource: HoganLovells Asia-Pacific Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Guide 2025
  • She Got an Abortion. So A Texas Cop Used 83,000 Cameras to Track Her Down.
  • Why AI May Be Listening In on Your Next Doctor’s Appointment
  • Watch out for activist judges trying to deprive us of our rights to safe reproductive healthcare
  • Nebraska Bans Minor Social Media Accounts Without Parental Consent
  • Trump Taps Palantir to Compile Data on Americans

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.