DataBreaches.Net

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

The Data Breach Notification That Cried Wolf: How Connecticut’s Overbroad Data Breach Notification Statute Undermines the Effectiveness of Consumer Protection

Posted on May 18, 2015 by Dissent

Jackson Raymond Schipke, Connecticut, 3L Roger Williams University Law School writes:

Connecticut’s data breach statute is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. That statute’s definition of “breach of security” is overbroad, encourages over-notification, and undermines the goal of protecting consumers from identity theft. In Connecticut, notification is triggered by mere access of personal information, a statutory feature that encourages over-notification. Over-notification refers to a Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf-like phenomenon. Specifically, when consumers receive many notices of breaches that do not result in identity theft, notices of high-risk breaches will be ignored because the “average” data breach poses no risk of harm – a result that clearly undermines the statute’s consumer protection goals.

Importantly, Connecticut’s data breach law only applies to Connecticut businesses. Therefore to the extent that data breach notices damage a business’s reputation (which they surely do) Connecticut businesses are placed at a disadvantage to similarly situated businesses in other states due to the greater frequency of required disclosure of breaches.

Read more on Robinson & Cole Data Privacy and Security Insider.

Did no one at the law firm review his submission and think to point out the problems with it?

Methinks Mr. Schipke needs to read up more on the reasons for using access as a notification trigger instead of using other approaches. Then, too, it is not just financial security that is of concern, and it is not just “Connecticut businesses” who are required to notify.

Connecticut’s statute calls for “anyone who conducts business in Connecticut” and who owns, licenses or maintains computerized data that includes personal information on residents of Connecticut. Connecticut is one of three entities that use an access trigger, the other two being New Jersey and Puerto Rico. So yes, Connecticut requires more notifications, all else being equal, but it applies to non-Connecticut businesses, too. Of course, this particular concern could be addressed by a national data breach notification law that exposed all entities to the same standards, but hey, that’s another story, right?

Related posts:

  • Kept in the Dark — Meet the Hired Guns Who Make Sure School Cyberattacks Stay Hidden
Category: Commentaries and AnalysesState/Local

Post navigation

← IL: Boyd Hospital failed to remove stored patient records before building sold
MN: Associated Dentists notifying patients after office burglary →

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 Centers for Infectious Disease Associates Notifies Individuals of Data Breach in 2024
  • Battlefords Union Hospitals notifies patients of employee snooping in their records
  • 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

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.