DataBreaches.Net

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

Goldilocks and the three data breach estimates

Posted on November 7, 2014 by Dissent

Estimate in haste, repent in leisure? 

Over on PHIprivacy.net, I recently reported on a breach in Jersey City involving patient records stolen from a shed behind a doctor’s office. The first media report, on NJ.com, said Dr. Nisar A. Quraishi told police that 40,000 patients’ records had been stolen. At 40,000, that incident would qualify as the second largest breach in New Jersey involving patient information since HHS started posting breaches in September 2009.

Two days later, in follow-up coverage, NJ.com reported that the doctor had revised his estimate of the number of patients affected downwards to 5,000 – 10,000. But by then, most sites that had picked up the original story had moved on or did not go back and update their blog entries or reports. As a result, a Google search of the doctor’s name returns results that show the 40,000 figure in a headline or summary, and not the lower estimate.

So was this self-inflicted reputation harm? Yes. Of course even 5,000 is a lot of patient medical records to be left in a shed behind an empty office, but 5,000-10,000 is not as bad as 40,000, is it?

Today, the situation got even more confusing, as HHS added the incident to its public breach tool. It seems the doctor informed HHS that 20,000 patients were affected.

So which is it: 20,000 patients or 5,000-10,000 patients? Because HHS’s breach tool doesn’t indicate when the report was filed with them, we don’t know whether the 20,000 estimate is more current and more accurate than the 5,000-10,000 estimate, or whether the latter is more accurate.  On some level, all of the reports are suspect because the doctor’s failure to provide an exact number might suggest to some that he didn’t maintain a master index of the stored records that would tell him exactly how many patients had records stored in the shed.

Of course,  it may not matter anyway in terms of reputation harm if all most people remember is a report that 40,000 patients had their medical information (and in many cases, SSN) stolen because a doctor left paper records going back to 1982 in a shed behind an office he hadn’t used or been to in months.

In any event, while it is frustrating when entities don’t disclose the number affected by a breach,  rushing to disclose a number and then having to revise it may be damaging to your reputation. If you overestimated, people may not see the revised lower figure. If you underestimated, people may accuse you of initially trying to downplay the breach when the higher figures come out. And either way, some people will be upset that you had no idea how much data you were retaining and will find you less trustworthy as a result.

So unless you’re sure you have a fairly accurate estimate or unless a state law requires you to provide a number before you’re ready to, why not give yourself a little bit of time to make the determination?

 

 

Category: Commentaries and AnalysesHealth Data

Post navigation

← Email addresses of 4,000 New Brunswickers released by Skillsoft in cc: gaffe
Breaking up is hard to do →

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

  • Iran-Linked Threat Actors Leak Visitors and Athletes’ Data from Saudi Games
  • UK: Oxford City Council still investigating cyberattack from earlier this month
  • Steelmaker Nucor Says Hackers Stole Data in Recent Attack
  • People’s Republic of China cyber threat activity: Cyber Threat Bulletin
  • Ukrainian Web3 security auditing company Hacken suffered an attack that allowed a hacker to create 900 million HAI tokens
  • McLaren provides written notice to 743,131 patients after ransomware attack in July 2024
  • 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

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

  • 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
  • Officials defend Liberal bill that would force hospitals, banks, hotels to hand over 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.