DataBreaches.Net

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

Why the NM Senate panel blocked the data breach bill

Posted on March 30, 2015 by Dissent

There’s an interesting piece in the Albuquerque Journal that explains why a New Mexico data breach notification bill failed again. It appears that most of the Democrats on the committee voted against it, but why they voted against it is of note. Thomas J. Cole reports:

“The comments appeared to be it was too industry-friendly for the attorneys on the committee,” Rep. William “Bill” Rehm, R-Albuquerque, sponsor of the bill, said in an interview last week.

At the hearing, Sen. Joseph Cervantes, a trial lawyer, said he was concerned about the strength of the notification requirements for companies in the legislation, as well as a cap of $150,000 on the amount of damages the state attorney general could collect from a company for notification violations.

Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, also noted that the measure didn’t explicitly permit individuals to seek damages caused by identity theft or fraud due to notification violations.

Read more on Albuquerque Journal.

So the Democrats killed it because the bill was too weak? The private cause of action will likely prove to be a sticking point in future proposals.

In the meantime, New Mexico remains one of only a few states that have no breach notification law.

 

Category: Breach LawsCommentaries and AnalysesState/Local

Post navigation

← ZW: Raid on newsroom justified: Nyambirai
Ontario’s sole health privacy prosecution quietly dismissed →

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

  • Texas gastroenterology and surgical practice victim of ransomware attack
  • Romanian Citizen Pleads Guilty to ‘Swatting’ Numerous Members of Congress, Churches, and Former U.S. President
  • North Dakota Enacts Financial Data Security and Data Breach Notification Requirements
  • Pro-Ukraine hacker group Black Owl poses ‘major threat’ to Russia, Kaspersky says
  • Vanta bug exposed customers’ data to other customers
  • Lyrix Ransomware Targets Windows Users with Advanced Evasion Techniques
  • Central Maine Healthcare tackles suspected cybersecurity issue; hospitals remain open
  • Cartier Data Breach: Luxury Retailer Warns Customers that Personal Data Was Exposed
  • Beyond the Pond Phish: Unraveling Lazarus Group’s Evolving Tactics
  • Akira doesn’t keep its promises to victims — SuspectFile

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

  • Supreme Court Agrees to Clarify Emergency Situations Where Police Don’t Need Warrant
  • Stewart Baker vs. Orin Kerr on “The Digital Fourth Amendment”
  • Fears Grow Over ICE’s Reach Into Schools
  • Resource: HoganLovells Asia-Pacific Data, Privacy and Cybersecurity Guide 2025
  • She Got an Abortion. So A Texas Cop Used 83,000 Cameras to Track Her Down.
  • 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

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.