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

1/15/2008
04:16 PM
George V. Hulme
George V. Hulme
Commentary
50%
50%

The Time Is Now (Better Yet, Yesterday) For A Federal Data Breach Disclosure Law

It'll soon be five years since the California data breach disclosure law, better known as SB 1386, went into effect. So far the law has had some success. But we need a federal standard.

It'll soon be five years since the California data breach disclosure law, better known as SB 1386, went into effect. So far the law has had some success. But we need a federal standard.For certain, the number of public security breach disclosures have risen dramatically since the law went into effect. Including a number of blockbusters, such as those at ChoicePoint, TJX, and the VA. Prior to SB 1386, too many (read: nearly all) companies opted to ignore the data theft. They wouldn't call law enforcement, and they certainly wouldn't give their customers a heads-up that something was awry with their account information.

But this newfound visibility has done little to help customers whose financially-related account information has been placed at risk. Most companies offer little more than a free year's worth of credit monitoring. Something that can be bought for between $50 to $100 from the major credit reporting agencies. The best thing a consumer can do is place a freeze on their credit reports. But if their account information or Social Security number already has been used for credit card fraud or outright identity theft, they're facing many painful hours and hundreds of dollars lost trying to regain control of their name. Not to mention the hassle of rebuilding credit.

The bad news for IT security managers is that there are now more than 35 individual state security breach laws, many different than SB 1386. There's little hope in being compliant to all 35 -- so most enterprises follow California's lead and hope they're in compliance with the rest. But there's risk in this approach, as some states have lower standards that trigger a breach notification.

What's needed is a federal law that would establish a clear and consistent mandate for customer breach notifications.

 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 7/9/2020
Russian Cyber Gang 'Cosmic Lynx' Focuses on Email Fraud
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  7/7/2020
Why Cybersecurity's Silence Matters to Black Lives
Tiffany Ricks, CEO, HacWare,  7/8/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
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 Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
The Threat from the Internetand What Your Organization Can Do About It
This report describes some of the latest attacks and threats emanating from the Internet, as well as advice and tips on how your organization can mitigate those threats before they affect your business. Download it today!
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2012-6486
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2012. Notes: none.
CVE-2012-6487
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2012. Notes: none.
CVE-2012-6488
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2012. Notes: none.
CVE-2012-6489
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2012. Notes: none.
CVE-2012-6490
PUBLISHED: 2020-07-10
** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2012. Notes: none.