DataBreaches.Net

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

MA: Property Management Firm to Pay $15,000 in Civil Penalties Following Data Breach – But Why?

Posted on March 26, 2012 by Dissent

A follow-up to a breach reported on this blog (but not in the mainstream media) in November 2011:

A property management firm will pay $15,000 in civil penalties following the theft of a laptop containing the personal information of over 600 Massachusetts residents, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today.

“It is incredibly important that businesses ensure that laptops and other technology have the necessary encryption to protect consumers from identity theft,” AG Coakley said. “We will continue to make sure that companies understand their responsibilities under the data privacy laws and are held accountable when they do not adhere to them.”

According to the Assurance of Discontinuance filed in Suffolk Superior Court today, an employee for Maloney Properties, Inc. (“MPI”) had a laptop containing the unencrypted personal information of up to 621 residents stolen from her car during the night. MPI has indicated that it has no evidence that consumers’ personal information has been acquired or used by an unauthorized person or for an unauthorized purpose.

In addition to paying $15,000 in civil penalties, according to the Assurance of Discontinuance, MPI must:

  • ensure that personal information is not unnecessarily stored on portable devices, including laptops;
  • ensure that all personal information stored on portable devices is properly encrypted;
  • ensure that all portable devices containing personal information are stored in a secure location; and
  • effectively train employees on the policies and procedures with respect to maintaining the security of personal information.

This matter was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Sara Cable and Shannon Choy-Seymour of Attorney General Coakley’s Consumer Protection Division.

Source: Attorney General of Massachusetts

So why penalties for this firm and not other firms that have had laptop thefts or thefts of data from less than really secure locations? Surely Massachusetts gets a lot of breach reports each year. And I’d bet this isn’t the only time that unencrypted data were stolen from a car.  So why this one? It would have been helpful for the AG to explain why this breach merited a fine that other breaches didn’t merit.

Interestingly, not only did this breach not attract media attention at the time of their disclosure, even the penalty has not (yet) attracted mainstream media attention.  The AG issued this press release on March 21, and I see no reference to the fine in any media coverage since then.  If the AG wanted to make a point, this may not have been the right case or the best way to go about making whatever the point is.

h/t Data Privacy Monitor

Related posts:

  • TD Bank to Pay $625,000 to Address Data Breach Involving Thousands of Massachusetts Residents
  • Lawmakers introduce bipartisan bill for ‘internet of things’ security standards
Category: Breach IncidentsBusiness SectorCommentaries and AnalysesOf NoteTheftU.S.

Post navigation

← You can do everything right, but still incur penalties – lessons learned from BCBS of Tennessee
3rd doctor’s office targeted for laptop theft →

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

  • ShinyHunters and team members arrested in France (1)
  • Texas Enacts Liability Shield From Punitive Damages for Certain Small Businesses That Adopt Cybersecurity Programs
  • Dublin ETB fined €125,000 for data protection breaches
  • From $5,000 to $800,000: Days Apart, OCR Security Settlements Show Puzzling Math
  • Liberty Township in Ohio has recovered its network after a ransomware attack
  • Marquette County Medical Care Facility discloses data breach
  • Industry Letter – June 23, 2025: Impact to Financial Sector of Ongoing Global Conflicts
  • MNGI Digestive Health settles class action lawsuit stemming from BlackCat attack
  • Four REvil ransomware members released after time served on carding charges
  • Why Dumping Sensitive Data on Network Shares is a Liability

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

  • How Internet of Things devices affect your privacy – even when they’re not yours
  • Sky Views Personal Data as a Potential Weapon in IPTV Piracy War
  • Florida Used a Nationwide Surveillance Camera Network 250 Times To Aid in Immigration Arrests
  • Federal Court Strikes Down HIPAA Reproductive Health Care Privacy Rule
  • 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

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.