DataBreaches.Net

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

Proposed data breach bill in Washington State: comments

Posted on January 9, 2015 by Dissent

So I’ve just read the proposed legislation for revising Washington State’s data breach notification law (see the WA AG’s press release on the proposal here).

A few comments/observations on the bill:

1. The bill eliminates the word “computerized” before “data,” thereby seemingly expanding the data breach notification requirements to paper records or other formats.  That is a good thing.

2. The bill eliminates the blanket safe harbor for “encrypted” data. I understand that logic that what some entities might call “encrypted” might be easy to break, but why damp down the motivation to encrypt? Why not continue to offer safe harbor, but specify that the encryption must be NIST-grade or meet some high standard?

3. The bill, which is oriented to financial data, continues to use an acquisition standard/trigger as opposed to an access standard. It also adds a new exemption:

Notice is not required if the breach of the security of the system is not reasonably likely to subject consumers to a risk of criminal activity.

That language is problematic, as who determines the risk or likelihood? And what about breaches of sensitive personal information that may not result in criminal activity but could have other serious consequences for consumers?

4. Personal information is defined as an “individual’s first name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements:

(a) Social security number;

(b) Driver’s license number or Washington identification card number; or

(c) Full account number, credit or debit card number,  or any required security code, access code, or password that would permit access to an individual’s financial account.

Again: why is the state only concerned about financial accounts? What about the risk of medical identity theft?

The focus on financial accounts and financial crimes does not serve consumers as well as a broader bill covering more data types might.  And given that consumers continue to re-use login credentials across sites and account types, the lack of requirement to notify of a breach involving login credentials could leave consumers in the dark when they could use a warning.

5. The bill will require entities to report the breach to consumers within 30 days, barring an exemption for law enforcement purposes, with a  number of options for how notification is provided.

6. Breaches affecting more than 500 consumers would have to be reported to the state, as California requires.

Overall, although there are a few good features, this bill could be so much better for consumers than what has been proposed.

Category: Breach LawsCommentaries and AnalysesState/Local

Post navigation

← Attorney General calls for enhanced data security law to protect consumers as part of 2015 legislative agenda
Indiana Attorney General settles with former dentist accused of dumping patient files →

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

  • Rewards for Justice offers $10M reward for info on RedLine developer or RedLine’s use by foreign governments
  • 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

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.