DataBreaches.Net

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

Changes urged for Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2010

Posted on September 23, 2010 by Dissent

Eric Chabrow reports on BankInfoSecurity.com that a number of witnesses testifying yesterday during the Senate hearing on the Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2010 urged Congress to exempt groups when breach notification is already mandated by other laws.

Of course, their arguments make a certain amount of sense — except for the fact that if we exempt all these sectors or groups, we will still have a crazy patchwork quilt of laws instead of one clear federal law. Under those conditions, depending on who loses particular pieces of information, you may or may not get notified. Does it matter to consumers whether the sensitive data were on a laptop stolen from a financial sector employee or from a health care sector employee? The protections need to follow the data and not be subject to varying opinions and standards about “risk of harm.”

One reason to hope that this bill would apply to more sectors is that it details what kinds of information need to be included in a notification.  Under the proposed bill, the notification is to include:

(i) the date, estimated date, or estimated date range of the breach of security;
(ii) a description of the personal information that was acquired or accessed by an unauthorized person;
(iii) a telephone number that the individual may use, at no cost to such individual, to contact the covered entity to inquire about the breach of security or the information the covered entity maintained about that individual;
(iv) notice that the individual is entitled to receive, at no cost to such individual, consumer credit reports on a quarterly basis for a period of 2 years, or credit monitoring or other service that enables consumers to detect the misuse of their personal information for a period of 2 years, and instructions to the individual on requesting such reports or service from the covered entity, except when the only information which has been the subject of the security breach is the individual’s first name or initial and last name, or address, or phone number, in combination with a credit or debit card number, and any required security code;
(v) the toll-free contact telephone numbers and addresses for the major credit reporting agencies; and
(vi) a toll-free telephone number and Internet website address for the Commission whereby the individual may obtain information regarding identity theft.

The above seems reasonable to me, although I would prefer to see two additional requirements that the entity disclose when and how they first became aware of the breach and when they re-secured their system.

Chabrow also reports:

Subcommittee Chairman Mark Pryor, D-Ark., said the panel could redraft and vote on the bill as early as next week. In his opening statement, Pryor cited the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, which said more than a half billion data records have been compromised by unauthorized access to consumer databases since 2005. Last year, he said, nearly 500 data breaches in the United States potentially exposed 222 million sensitive records.

It’s nice to see Congress looking at breach reports and statistics compiled by groups like the PRC, ITRC, and DataLossDB.org. But are they paying enough attention to how many breaches involve paper records? Let’s see how they revise the draft bill.   I doubt they’ll get rid of some of the provisions that I strongly dislike, but then, they do not legislate to please me.

Category: Commentaries and AnalysesLegislation

Post navigation

← AU: Security breached as former prostitute pilfers Einfeld police transcript
Backup with sensitive HIV information stolen — from a car →

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

  • A state forensics lab was leaking its files. Getting it locked down involved a number of people.
  • CoinMarketCap Hacked, Scrambles to Remove Malicious Wallet Verification Popup
  • Montana Attorney General launches investigation into Lee Enterprises data breach
  • AT&T gets preliminary approval for $177 million data breach settlement
  • Aflac notifies SEC of breach suspected to be work of Scattered Spider
  • Former JBLM soldier pleads guilty to attempting to share military secrets with China
  • No, the 16 billion credentials leak is not a new data breach — a wake-up call about fake news (Updated)
  • Tonga’s health system hit by cyberattack (1)
  • Russia Expert Falls Prey to Elite Hackers Disguised as US Officials
  • Proposed class action settlement in In re Netgain Technology litigation

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 Markup caught 4 more states sharing personal health data with Big Tech
  • Privacy in the Big Sky State: Montana’s Consumer Privacy Law Gets Amended
  • UK Passes Data Use and Access Regulation Bill
  • Officials defend Liberal bill that would force hospitals, banks, hotels to hand over data
  • US Judge Invalidates Biden Rule Protecting Privacy for Abortions
  • DOJ’s Data Security Program: Key Compliance Considerations for Impacted Entities
  • 23andMe fined £2.31 million for failing to protect UK users’ genetic data

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.