DataBreaches.Net

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

OIS Commentary: And some walls will come tumbling down

Posted on June 3, 2009 by Dissent

One of yesterday’s posts on PHIprivacy.net reports a data breach involving Kelsey-Seybold Clinic that has not been reported in the mainstream media. I contacted Kelsey-Seybold after a site visitor alerted me to the breach. The report is frustratingly short on details, though, because Kelsey-Seybold could — and did — simply ignore questions it did not to want to answer. Perhaps they provided their patients with a fuller disclosure, and I hope they did, but the contrast between their approach to voluntary public disclosure and that of Johns Hopkins Hospital is striking.

Thankfully, when the HITECH Act provisions incorporated in Public Law 111-5 (ARRA) go into effect, entities who have stonewalled reporters or bloggers or who otherwise try to keep breaches out of the media will probably have to rethink their public relations and disclosure approach. Although not all breaches involving personal health information (PHI) will have to be publicly disclosed, many more will, and the notice and notification provisions in the law include both publishing a notice in prominent media outlets and notifying the federal government who will post the breach on a public web site maintained by Health & Human Services (HHS).

Under the contents of notification provisions of HITECH, we still won’t necessarily know how many patients were affected in any particular breach (other than it affected 500 or more), and it is not clear to me whether saying a “laptop was stolen was from an employee” would suffice for the brief description of if the entity would have to include the location of the theft (from the office, vehicle, home, etc.), but I am hopeful that we will get more information than we have gotten to date.

The breach notification requirements under the HITECH Act go into effect 30 days after the date that interim final regulations are promulgated, which was to be no later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the law in February. If HHS does publish the regulations by August 16, 2009, the breach notification obligations should go into effect mid-September. Maybe I’ll post a countdown clock on the site so that I have something to look forward to.


Related:

  • Two U.K. teenagers appear in court over Transport of London cyber attack
  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
  • Confidence in ransomware recovery is high but actual success rates remain low
  • Protected health information of 462,000 members of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Montana involved in Conduent data breach
  • Resource: NY DFS Issues New Cybersecurity Guidance to Address Risks Associated with the Use of Third-Party Service Providers
  • TX: Kaufman County Faces Cybersecurity Attack: Courthouse Computer Operations Disrupted
Category: Breach IncidentsBreach LawsCommentaries and AnalysesFederalHealth DataID TheftInsiderLegislationLost or MissingTheftU.S.

Post navigation

← NZ: Police investigate alleged leak from DNA database
UK: ID database snooped for celebrities’ secrets →

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

  • 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
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs
  • A jailed hacking kingpin reveals all about the gang that left a trail of destruction
  • Army gynecologist took secret videos of patients during intimate exams, lawsuit says
  • The Case for Making EdTech Companies Liable Under FERPA
  • NHS providers reviewing stolen Synnovis data published by cyber criminals

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

  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs
  • Always watching: How ICE’s plan to monitor social media 24/7 threatens privacy and civic participation
  • Who’s watching the watchers? This Mozilla fellow, and her Surveillance Watch map

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.