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?

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

  • Nova Scotia Power hit by cyberattack, critical infrastructure targeted, no outages reported
  • Georgia hospital defeats data-tracking lawsuit
  • 60K BTC Wallets Tied to LockBit Ransomware Gang Leaked
  • UK: Legal Aid Agency hit by cyber security incident
  • Public notice for individuals affected by an information security breach in the Social Services, Health Care and Rescue Services Division of Helsinki
  • PowerSchool paid a hacker’s extortion demand, but now school district clients are being extorted anyway (3)
  • Defending Against UNC3944: Cybercrime Hardening Guidance from the Frontlines
  • Call for Public Input: Essential Cybersecurity Protections for K-12 Schools (2025-26 SY)
  • Cyberattack puts healthcare on hold for hundreds in St. Louis metro
  • Europol: DDoS-for-hire empire brought down: Poland arrests 4 administrators, US seizes 9 domains

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

  • Apple Siri Eavesdropping Payout Deadline Confirmed—How To Make A Claim
  • Privacy matters to Canadians – Privacy Commissioner of Canada marks Privacy Awareness Week with release of latest survey results
  • Missouri Clinic Must Give State AG Minor Trans Care Information
  • Georgia hospital defeats data-tracking lawsuit
  • No Postal Service Data Sharing to Deport Immigrants
  • DOGE aims to pool federal data, putting personal information at risk
  • Privacy concerns swirl around HHS plan to build Medicare, Medicaid database on autism

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.