DataBreaches.Net

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

Some comments on the Florida Information Protection Act of 2014

Posted on June 23, 2014 by Dissent

The Florida Information Protection Act of 2014 was approved by Governor Rick Scott on June 20. It has some commendable features (not all of which are new under Florida law), but I also spot some concerns.

On a positive note:

1. It uses an access trigger instead of an acquisition trigger for notification.

2. It now includes other types of information in its definition of “personal information,” including “A user name or e-mail address, in combination with a password or security question and answer that would permit access to an online account.”

3. It requires notice of a breach to the Department of Legal Affairs if the breach affects 500 or more individuals in Florida. That gives us another centralized database to FOI.

4. It requires data security:

Each covered entity, governmental entity, or third-party agent shall take reasonable measures to protect and secure data in electronic form containing personal information.

5. It imposes duties on third-party agents to notify covered entities of a breach within 10 days and shortens the timeframe for covered entities to notify consumers from 45 days to 30 days, although entities can get an extension.

6. It requires reasonable measures to dispose, or arrange for the disposal, of customer records containing personal information when the records are no longer to be retained; and

7. It treats violations as unfair or deceptive trade practices, and covered entities or third-party agencies could face monetary penalties of up to $500,000.

On a negative note:

1. A breach is defined in terms of electronic data, and this law does not seem to apply to paper records.

2. The law says that notification to individuals is

not required if, after an appropriate investigation and consultation with relevant federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies, the covered entity reasonably determines that the breach has not and will not likely result in identity theft or any other financial harm to the individuals whose personal information has been accessed.

3. The law does not require any mitigation other than notice to the individuals (if the entity does not determine that there is no likely risk of ID theft or financial harm).

3. The law does not create any private cause of action.

Category: State/Local

Post navigation

← $800,000 HIPAA settlement in medical records dumping case
Michael Schumacher's medical files stolen – report →

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

  • 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
  • St. Cloud Provides Update on Ransomware Attack in 2024
  • Bradford Health Systems detected abnormal network activity in December 2023. They first sent out breach notices this week.
  • Websites selling hacking tools to cybercriminals seized
  • ConnectWise suspects cyberattack affecting some ScreenConnect customers was state-sponsored
  • Possible ransomware attack disrupts Maine and New Hampshire Covenant Health locations

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

  • 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
  • The US Is Storing Migrant Children’s DNA in a Criminal Database
  • Home Pregnancy Test Company Wins Dismissal of Pixel Wiretapping Suit
  • The CCPA emerges as a new legal battleground for web tracking litigation

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.