Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

10/17/2007
03:37 PM
Tom Smith
Tom Smith
Commentary
50%
50%

Personal Data Protection Legislation: Readers Have Their Say

Reader comments on my post about the California governor's veto of a bill that would increase the state's data protection standards included some points warranting further discussion and some intriguing ideas. A related poll shows readers share my skepticism about businesses' will and capacity to fix the data loss problem.

Reader comments on my post about the California governor's veto of a bill that would increase the state's data protection standards included some points warranting further discussion and some intriguing ideas. A related poll shows readers share my skepticism about businesses' will and capacity to fix the data loss problem.Reader Scott Taylor writes:

"What makes you think a government program would be better. Normal economics won't work once gov programs take over. With current conditions, market pressures will force credit card company, banks, etc. to step up and solve the problem or the consumer will simply go another route."

In most other circumstances, I'd agree with Scott. I would prefer the problem be solved by market forces and without the long arm of government reaching in. But that hasn't worked in this case, and dramatic steps are needed to give consumers back some sense of control over their identities and personal information.

One reader labeled my blog an "anti-business rant." As stated above, I'd much rather keep government out of the affairs of business and focus on what it can do well (ironically, personal data protection doesn't make that list, as several readers noted). As much as I don't want an intrusive government meddling in business or personal affairs, I want privacy and protection of my personal data even more.

Every time I use a credit card today, the threat of identity theft looms in my mind. It's not helping that I'm also an Ameritrade customer, a Verizon Wireless customer, and I've gotten other "Dear Tom, we just lost lots of customer data" letters.

In the case of Verizon Wireless, I picked up the phone immediately on learning of its data sharing policies and opted out of them. In the past, I would have taken the trouble to lodge a formal complaint or at least write a letter objecting to Verizon Wireless' practices, but the use/misuse of our data is so prevalent that complaining seems downright futile.

I found particularly telling the accounts from IT professionals in big companies who say that their organizations are more likely to act out of fear that they not become the next TJ Maxx than the better goals of complying with laws or protecting customers' identities.

Inside one large banking organization, according to "Tom," this is the state of affairs:

"Most of the discussions are about avoiding the damaging publicity of a breach, as opposed to impact of violating one of the many regulations already covering this area."

Some expressed the dismaying view that there's not enough financial incentive to invest in protections; rather, this argument goes, companies will take their lumps for a data breach, pay their fines and move on. That's cheaper than fixing the problem. I just can't accept that argument, either. The breach at TJ Maxx's parent cost more than a quarter-billion dollars, so far.

Some of the more constructive reader suggestions on how to force better protections:

From MarcoVincenzo:

What we really need are laws restricting what information can be collected and mandatory destruction of that information in the shortest practicable time period.

Amen to that.

From Steve:

We should be asked if we want to 'opt in.' Why should the baseline be that companies can use your private info unless you opt out?

See Verizon Wireless comments above.

Results from the poll I fielded indicate a high degree of skepticism of the businesses collecting data. Among 100 respondents, 57% say they don't think businesses will figure it out how to protect your data in the absence of legislation. That 57% was evenly split between the view that it's unlikely they'll figure it out and the view that they're simply incapable of doing so.

Another 39% are more optimistic; they think business will eventually figure out how to protect personal data in the absence of legislation forcing them to do so - most saying they'll do so eventually rather than quickly.

In this debate, count me among the pessimists.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 8/3/2020
Pen Testers Who Got Arrested Doing Their Jobs Tell All
Kelly Jackson Higgins, Executive Editor at Dark Reading,  8/5/2020
Browsers to Enforce Shorter Certificate Life Spans: What Businesses Should Know
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/30/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Special Report: Computing's New Normal, a Dark Reading Perspective
This special report examines how IT security organizations have adapted to the "new normal" of computing and what the long-term effects will be. Read it and get a unique set of perspectives on issues ranging from new threats & vulnerabilities as a result of remote working to how enterprise security strategy will be affected long term.
Flash Poll
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
The Changing Face of Threat Intelligence
This special report takes a look at how enterprises are using threat intelligence, as well as emerging best practices for integrating threat intel into security operations and incident response. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-15127
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
In Contour ( Ingress controller for Kubernetes) before version 1.7.0, a bad actor can shut down all instances of Envoy, essentially killing the entire ingress data plane. GET requests to /shutdown on port 8090 of the Envoy pod initiate Envoy's shutdown procedure. The shutdown procedure includes flip...
CVE-2020-15132
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
In Sulu before versions 1.6.35, 2.0.10, and 2.1.1, when the "Forget password" feature on the login screen is used, Sulu asks the user for a username or email address. If the given string is not found, a response with a `400` error code is returned, along with a error message saying that th...
CVE-2020-7298
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
Unexpected behavior violation in McAfee Total Protection (MTP) prior to 16.0.R26 allows local users to turn off real time scanning via a specially crafted object making a specific function call.
CVE-2020-13404
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
The ATOS/Sips (aka Atos-Magento) community module 3.0.0 to 3.0.5 for Magento allows command injection.
CVE-2020-15112
PUBLISHED: 2020-08-05
In etcd before versions 3.3.23 and 3.4.10, it is possible to have an entry index greater then the number of entries in the ReadAll method in wal/wal.go. This could cause issues when WAL entries are being read during consensus as an arbitrary etcd consensus participant could go down from a runtime pa...