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.

Related posts:

  • Obama’s federal data breach notification bill: boon to businesses, but not most consumers
  • NY: A.G. Schneiderman Proposes Bill To Strengthen Data Security Laws, Protect Consumers From Growing Threat Of Data Breaches
  • Senator Toomey reintroduces bill to preempt state data breach notification laws
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

  • Alert: Scattered Spider has added North American airline and transportation organizations to their target list
  • Northern Light Health patients affected by security incident at Compumedics; 10 healthcare entities affected
  • Privacy commissioner reviewing reported Ontario Health atHome data breach
  • CMS warns Medicare providers of fraud scheme
  • Ex-student charged with wave of cyber attacks on Sydney uni
  • Detaining Hackers Before the Crime? Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court Approves Preventive Custody for Cyber Offenders
  • Potential Cyberattack Scrambles Columbia University Computer Systems
  • 222,000 customer records allegedly from Manhattan Parking Group leaked
  • Breaches have consequences (sometimes) (1)
  • Kansas City Man Pleads Guilty for Hacking a Non-Profit

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

  • Germany Wants Apple, Google to Remove DeepSeek From Their App Stores
  • Supreme Court upholds Texas law requiring age verification on porn sites
  • Justices nix Medicaid ‘right’ to choose doctor, defunding Planned Parenthood in South Carolina
  • European Commission publishes its plan to enable more effective law enforcement access to data
  • Sacred Secrets: The Biblical Case for Privacy and Data Protection
  • Microsoft’s Departing Privacy Chief Calls for Regulator Outreach
  • Nestle USA Settles Suit Over Job-Application Medical Questions

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.