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.