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

  • Hearing on the Federal Government and AI
  • Nigerian National Sentenced To More Than Five Years For Hacking, Fraud, And Identity Theft Scheme
  • Data breach of patient info ends in firing of Miami hospital employee
  • Texas DOT investigates breach of crash report records, sends notification letters
  • PowerSchool hacker pleads guilty, released on personal recognizance bond
  • Rewards for Justice offers $10M reward for info on RedLine developer or RedLine’s use by foreign governments
  • New evidence links long-running hacking group to Indian government
  • Zaporizhzhia Cyber ​​Police Exposes Hacker Who Caused Millions in Losses to Victims by Mining Cryptocurrency
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Google: Hackers target Salesforce accounts in data extortion attacks

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

  • The Decision That Murdered Privacy
  • Hearing on the Federal Government and AI
  • California county accused of using drones to spy on residents
  • How the FBI Sought a Warrant to Search Instagram of Columbia Student Protesters
  • Germany fines Vodafone $51 million for privacy, security breaches
  • Malaysia enacts data sharing rules for public sector
  • U.S. Enacts Take It Down Act

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.