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:

  • The 4TB time bomb: when EY's cloud went public (and what it taught us)
  • Some lower-tier ransomware gangs have formed a new RaaS alliance -- or have they? (1)
  • Uncovering Qilin attack methods exposed through multiple cases
  • Predatory Sparrow Strikes: Coordinated Cyberattacks Seek to Cripple Iran's Critical Infrastructure
  • Ex-CISA head thinks AI might fix code so fast we won't need security teams
  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
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

  • Washington Post hack exposes personal data of John Bolton, almost 10,000 others
  • Draft UK Cyber Security and Resilience Bill Enters UK Parliament
  • Suspected Russian hacker reportedly detained in Thailand, faces possible US extradition
  • Did you hear the one about the ransom victim who made a ransom installment payment after they were told that it wouldn’t be accepted?
  • District of Massachusetts Allows Higher-Ed Student Data Breach Claims to Survive
  • End of the game for cybercrime infrastructure: 1025 servers taken down
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel

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

  • Maryland Privacy Crackdown Raises Bar for Disclosure Compliance
  • Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government
  • As shoplifting surges, British retailers roll out ‘invasive’ facial recognition tools
  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[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.