DataBreaches.Net

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

FTC complaint against LabMD could serve as guidance to businesses on data security

Posted on September 12, 2013 by Dissent

The Federal Trade Commission has released a provisionally redacted public version of its complaint against LabMD  (PHIprivacy.net’s coverage of LabMD linked here).

The complaint provides what could be useful  guidance as to what types of practices the FTC considers to be problematic practices under the Act:

10. At all relevant times, respondent engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security for personal information on its computer networks. Among other things, respondent:

(a) did not develop, implement, or maintain a comprehensive information security program to protect consumers’ personal information. Thus, for example, employees were allowed to send emails with such information to their personal email accounts without using readily available measures to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure;

(b) did not use readily available measures to identify commonly known or reasonably foreseeable security risks and vulnerabilities on its networks. By not using measures such as penetration tests, for example, respondent could not adequately assess the extent of the risks and vulnerabilities of its networks;

(c) did not use adequate measures to prevent employees from accessing personal information not needed to perform their jobs;

(d) did not adequately train employees to safeguard personal information;

(e) did not require employees, or other users with remote access to the networks, to use common authentication-related security measures, such as periodically changing passwords, prohibiting the use of the same password across applications and programs, or using two-factor authentication;

(f) did not maintain and update operating systems of computers and other devices on its networks. For example, on some computers respondent used operating systems that were unsupported by the vendor, making it unlikely that the systems would be updated to address newly discovered vulnerabilities; and

(g) did not employ readily available measures to prevent or detect unauthorized access to personal information on its computer networks. For example, respondent did not use appropriate measures to prevent employees from installing on computers applications or materials that were not needed to perform their jobs or adequately maintain or review records of activity on its networks. As a result, respondent did not detect the installation or use of an unauthorized file sharing application on its networks.

11. Respondent could have corrected its security failures at relatively low cost using readily available security measures.

12. Consumers have no way of independently knowing about respondent’s security failures and could not reasonably avoid possible harms from such failures, including identity theft, medical identity theft, and other harms, such as disclosure of sensitive, private medical information.

LabMD will likely respond that the FTC should have published these as a guideline before going after companies for not complying with them, but other businesses may want to use this complaint for their own guidance.  In the meantime, LabMD continues complaining vociferously about the FTC’s action.

Update: Woody Harzog reminded me this morning that his article with Dan Solove contains a taxonomy based on FTC’s data security complaints. You can download their article from SSRN. The taxonomy is pp. 44-47.

Category: Breach IncidentsCommentaries and AnalysesExposureHealth DataOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← Errant e-mail creates security breach at MNsure
Ca: Colbourne no longer listed as a defendant in privacy breach class-action lawsuit →

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

  • New evidence links long-running hacking group to Indian government
  • Zaporizhzhia Cyber ​​Police Exposes Hacker Who Caused Millions in Losses to Victims by Mining Cryptocurrency
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Google: Hackers target Salesforce accounts in data extortion attacks
  • The US Grid Attack Looming on the Horizon
  • US govt login portal could be one cyberattack away from collapse, say auditors
  • Two Men Sentenced to Prison for Aggravated Identity Theft and Computer Hacking Crimes
  • 100,000 UK taxpayer accounts hit in £47m phishing attack on HMRC
  • CISA Alert: Updated Guidance on Play Ransomware
  • Almost one year later, U.S. Dermatology Partners is still not being very transparent about their 2024 breach

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 the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Malaysia enacts data sharing rules for public sector
  • U.S. Enacts Take It Down Act
  • 23andMe Bankruptcy Judge Ponders Trump Bill’s Injunction Impact
  • Hell No: The ODNI Wants to Make it Easier for the Government to Buy Your Data Without Warrant
  • US State Dept. says silence or anonymity on social media is suspicious

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