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?

No related posts.

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

  • India’s Max Financial says hacker accessed customer data from its insurance unit
  • Brazil’s central bank service provider hacked, $140M stolen
  • Iranian and Pro-Regime Cyberattacks Against Americans (2011-Present)
  • Nigerian National Pleads Guilty to International Fraud Scheme that Defrauded Elderly U.S. Victims
  • Nova Scotia Power Data Breach Exposed Information of 280,000 Customers
  • No need to hack when it’s leaking: Brandt Kettwick Defense edition
  • SK Telecom to be fined for late data breach report, ordered to waive cancellation fees, criminal investigation into them launched
  • Louis Vuitton Korea suffers cyberattack as customer data leaked
  • Hunters International to provide free decryptors for all victims as they shut down (2)
  • SEC and SolarWinds Seek Settlement in Securities Fraud Case

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

  • German court awards Facebook user €5,000 for data protection violations
  • Record-Breaking $1.55M CCPA Settlement Against Health Information Website Publisher
  • Ninth Circuit Reviews Website Tracking Class Actions and the Reach of California’s Privacy Law
  • US healthcare offshoring: Navigating patient data privacy laws and regulations
  • Data breach reveals Catwatchful ‘stalkerware’ is spying on thousands of phones
  • Google Trackers: What You Can Actually Escape And What You Can’t
  • Oregon Amends Its Comprehensive Privacy Statute

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.