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

2/3/2015
10:30 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

Proposed Federal Data Breach Law Is Nice Gesture But No Panacea

President Obama's SOTU proposal demonstrates the growing importance of data protection for individuals but does little to address compliance complexities for business.

On Jan. 12, President Obama gave a speech to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in which he proposed several new measures to better protect consumer privacy, including the Personal Data Notification and Protection Act. If passed, the Act would largely preempt existing state laws and require all companies across the country to inform consumers of a data breach within 30 days of discovery.

In his speech, Obama explained why he believes we need a single, federal breach notification law:

Right now, almost every state has a different law on this, and it’s confusing for consumers and it’s confusing for companies—and it’s costly, too, to have to comply to this patchwork of laws. Sometimes, folks don’t even find out their credit card information has been stolen until they see charges on their bill, and then it’s too late. 

Did states ecstatically embrace the idea of a sweeping federal law to replace the 47 state laws currently in place? Not exactly. Just two days after the president’s speech, Eric Schneiderman, New York’s attorney general, made an announcement, but it wasn’t in support of the federal bill. He said he was going to propose a state bill to expand New York’s existing breach notification laws.

Not exactly the vote of confidence the president wanted.

The question for businesses is what to do while the states and federal government debate the issue. The Personal Data Notification and Protection Act almost certainly won’t pass as written, but maybe another federal bill will. If it does, enterprises will have to be ready to comply with a new set of regulations. If no new federal bill passes, businesses will still have to find a way to comply with existing federal regulations such as HIPAA and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, plus the patchwork of 47 state laws that are themselves constantly evolving.

Regardless of what happens next, the most important thing security and compliance teams can do right now is to make sure your systems for assessing incidents and proving compliance are efficient, scalable, and flexible. If you’re sitting on the fence, hoping a federal law will pass, simplify the breach notification process, and eliminate the need to invest in stronger risk assessment solutions...you will be disappointed. What’s more, even if a federal bill passes, the breach notification process is going to continue to be complex and time-consuming. Maybe even more so.

Let’s look at just one reason. As currently written, the Personal Data Notification and Protection Act would require businesses to assess every electronic incident involving protected information (broadly defined), and report incidents that qualify as data breaches to the Federal Trade Commission within 30 days. Here’s the added complexity: the Act would also require businesses to report to the FTC every single incident that is not a breach—a requirement that would mean roughly 50 times more reporting than state laws require right now.

The immense increase in reporting requirements is just one example of the complexities that would be part of any new federal bill. Consider, for instance, whether the federal law will cover only electronic breaches or also paper breaches, both of which are common issues for businesses. The president’s proposed law leaves out paper breaches, but some states cover both paper and electronic breaches, so consumer advocates will no doubt fight to have any federal bill do the same (or let states provide that protection on top of the federal law).

That brings up one more major issue that you’ll see debated in the months ahead: whether or not the federal bill should preempt existing state laws. Over the years, we’ve seen proposed bills that would have preempted all state laws, no state laws, or only inconsistent state laws. We’ve also seen attempts that would have set the federal law as a floor instead of a ceiling, allowing state laws to continue where they offered greater protection for consumers. What’s important to note is that in every instance, the result would have been new and continuing compliance challenges for businesses.

[Read what other security professionals think about proposed cybersecurity legislation in President's Plan To Crack Down On Hacking Could Hurt Good Hackers]

I don’t have a crystal ball to tell you whether some version of a federal data breach notification law will pass this year, and if so, what its specific requirements will be. But I can tell you that even if a federal law passes, it will bring many new complexities and requirements, even as it perhaps smooths out some issues with the onerous state-by-state system now in place.

Rather than fretting over what Congress may or may not pass, the best thing businesses can do right now is join the public and politicians in prioritizing protection of consumer data privacy in 2015. For businesses, that means investing in security incident assessment and reporting solutions that can handle whatever the state and federal government throws your way.

Rick Kam, CIPP/US, is president and co-founder of ID Experts. ID Experts(r) provides software and services to simplify the complexities of managing privacy and security incident response. Rick has extensive experience leading organizations in the development of policies and ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
SOC 2s & Third-Party Assessments: How to Prevent Them from Being Used in a Data Breach Lawsuit
Beth Burgin Waller, Chair, Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Practice , Woods Rogers PLC,  12/5/2019
Navigating Security in the Cloud
Diya Jolly, Chief Product Officer, Okta,  12/4/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: "This is the last time we hire Game of Thrones Security"
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19230
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
An unsafe deserialization vulnerability exists in CA Release Automation (Nolio) 6.6 with the DataManagement component that can allow a remote attacker to execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2013-0342
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
The CreateID function in packet.py in pyrad before 2.1 uses sequential packet IDs, which makes it easier for remote attackers to spoof packets by predicting the next ID, a different vulnerability than CVE-2013-0294.
CVE-2014-0242
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
mod_wsgi module before 3.4 for Apache, when used in embedded mode, might allow remote attackers to obtain sensitive information via the Content-Type header which is generated from memory that may have been freed and then overwritten by a separate thread.
CVE-2015-3424
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
SQL injection vulnerability in Accentis Content Resource Management System before the October 2015 patch allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary SQL commands via the SIDX parameter.
CVE-2015-3425
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-09
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in Accentis Content Resource Management System before October 2015 patch allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the ctl00$cph_content$_uig_formState parameter.