Quantcast StorefrontBacktalk » Blog Archive » U.S. Senate’s Data Breach Bill Full Of Flawed Assumptions
advertisement
advertisement

U.S. Senate’s Data Breach Bill Full Of Flawed Assumptions

Written by Evan Schuman
July 26th, 2009
Like this story? Share it
To share this story with people in your social network, please click on the network icons below.

The chairman of the powerful U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy, is trying—after two failed attempts—to get his data breach bill made into law. But even though his bill would answer the pleas of many retailers by creating one single national standard for handling major retail data breaches, the bill’s details don’t deliver the comprehensive relief promised. In short, the bill is trying to make it more difficult for major retail chains to hide large data breaches when, in fact, the wording will make it easier for them to hide such breaches.

Leahy is pushing the Personal Data Privacy and Security Act was introduced July 22 and said it was “one of my highest legislative priorities as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.” (Details details. Is that “one of my top two highest priorities” or “one of my top 10,000 highest priorities”?)

“This is a comprehensive bill that not only deals with the need to provide Americans with notice when they have been victims of a data breach, but that also deals with the underlying problem of lax security and lack of accountability to help prevent data breaches from occurring in the first place,” the Senator said in a statement.

The parts of the bill relevant for retails chains would increase criminal penalties for identity theft involving electronic personal data and make it a crime to “intentionally or willfully conceal a security breach involving personal data.” That last part carries a punishment of either a fine or imprisonment of as long as 5 years, or both. It allows allows the Federal Trade Commission to impose “a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per violation, per day and a maximum penalty of $500,000 per violation. Intentional and willful violations of these sections are subject to an additional civil penalty of $5,000 per violation, per day and an additional maximum penalty of $500,000 per violation.”

There’s the possibility that some smaller retail chains may be exempt, as the introduced version of the bill only applies to “business entities that compile, access, use, process, license, distribute, analyze or evaluate personally identifiable information in electronic or digital form on 10,000 or more U.S. persons.” A provision requires media notification “if the number of residents in a particular state whose information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, compromised exceeds 5,000 individuals.” Section 316 requires that business entities and federal agencies notify the Secret Service of the fact that a security breach occurred within 14 days of the breach, if the data security breach involves: (1) more than 10,000 individuals; (2) a database that contains information about more than 1 million individuals.

It also requires internal testing “to ensure that third parties or customers who are authorized to access this information have a valid legal reason for accessing or acquiring the information.”

Most importantly, the bill would replace a wide range of conflicting state laws, as it specifically “preempts state laws relating to administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for the protection of sensitive personally identifying information.”

But the core of the bill is where things get a bit dicey. It requires retailers to notify consumers impacted by a breach “without unreasonable delay” but it doesn’t say how much time retailers can take. Without that specific, it would seem difficult to enforce the law.

Even worse, the exemptions for notification are so broad as to make it unlikely that any retailer would actually be impacted. For example, the bill provides a blanket exemption as long as a chain “provides a written certification to the U.S. Secret Service that providing such notice would impede a criminal investigation or damage national security.” The Secret Service then has to perform a review to determine if it’s a warranted claim.


advertisement

One Comment | Read U.S. Senate’s Data Breach Bill Full Of Flawed Assumptions

  1. Read the Constitution Says:

    In regard to this statement:

    “The U.S. Senate needs to get involved, establish one federal standard for data breach procedures and put some serious teeth into it. That bill is needed.”

    Is it even worth pointing out any longer that, according to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, the idea of a federal data breach disclosure law that supersedes the authority of the states is illegal? Never mind the fact that anything approved by the US Senate will be 90% useless and 10% indecipherable.

Leave a Reply

Newsletter

Quickly catch-up on the latest in E-Commerce and Retail Tech with our free weekly newsletter, with urgent bulletins as news merits.
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Kill All The Passwords

This article does mention, but does not give enough attention to, the fact that the attacks discussed are only feasible when the encrypted password file can be copied and subjected to an offline attack. The trick is to have authentication performed on a separate, much more strongly secured host - such as an Active Directory Domain Controller, or a Kerberos server, or a NIS+ server, or even using something as banal as an LDAP-over-SSL authentication dialog. In these environments, the odds of the "password file" being stolen and subjected to an offline attack go to near zero, and only online attacks may be carried out by the attacker. With sensible exponential backoff between failed password attempts, lockout after a modest number of failed attempts on a single account, and pattern detection, that minimum 7 character password is quite secure enough. Passwords aren't dead yet for security purposes, and they will be with us for a very long while to come for practical purposes. The trick is to employ them correctly. Read more...
The possibilities you describe are years away from being implemented at best, so for the moment passwords are an ugly reality. Luckily, password managers can easily manage hundreds of passwords of any length. The only thing a user needs to remember is the master password. It seems like an easier task to educate users on how to use password managers rather than implement complex security technology on a global basis. Read more...