- Is Microsoft preparing us to move beyond Vista?
- Why Google wanted to lose wireless spectrum auction
- iPhone shortage fuels rumors of imminent 3G phone
- XP for cheap PCs: a second crack in the wall
- Darts into data: Leveraging random action to competitive advantage
- Most iPhone buyers are existing Apple customers
- AT&T's so-called open network principles
- Mono dev tool offered
- ActiveState upgrades IDE
- Serena plans SaaS products
September 21, 2007 | Comments: (0)
The state of Califor-notification
If it weren't for California 1386 and ChoicePoint, would we all be talking so much about data breaches these days? Maybe, but maybe not.
I'll never forget writing that first ChoicePoint breach story back in mid-Feb. 2005. It was one of those news items that really made you scratch your head and question how much such an event could potentially impact your own life.
I remember wondering how long this type of thing had been going on, how few were actually being reported, and how long it would be until someone subverted my identity.
A hop, skip, VA vet debacle and TJX Companies later, the consumer data-handling topic couldn't seem more relevant.
As we sit here reading, tomorrow marks the deadline for the White House's mandate for federal agencies to clean up their own data processing and retention activities. Progress is arguably being made.
But if it weren't for 1386 -- which was first introduced by California State Senator Steve Peace in 2002 -- we might not even be focused on the problem.
(If you believe Wikipedia, it's interesting to note that Peace maintained a career writing, producing and acting-in the "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" movie series, among others, before jumping into politics. I think we all dream of making such landmark civic and cultural contributions to society; don't we? I do!)
Anyway, California lawmakers are back at it, trying to lead the way. With some 38 U.S. states having followed suit and passed their own breach notification laws, now the Golden State gang has a new bill you might want to consider.
Earlier this month, California bill AB 779 was passed near-unanimously in both the State Senate and State Assembly, and it now sits on the Governator's desk, awaiting the prodigious force of his personal stamp of approval.
(779 was authored by Calif. Assemblyman Dave Jones.. considering Peace's former employment, you have to wonder, it couldn't be that Davy Jones, right? Though, he's from Sacramento, not Clarksville, apparently.)
At the center of the bill is a requirement that would force retailers like TJX Companies to reimburse banks and credit unions for any expenses those firms are forced to endure as a result of a data breach -- namely for re-issuing credit and debit cards to those customers whose accounts have been exposed. Sounds fair enough, and other states are again expected to follow suit.
Industry watchers of all sorts are taking interest in this one, as, if the law spreads a la 1386, it could truly force retailers to improve their operations. Consider, after all, that TJX reported increased in-store sales after its breach, despite all the media hooplah. (Although some believe the firm will cough up roughly $1 billion in penalties once all its class-action suits, etc. are resolved.)
Javelin Strategy Analyst Rachael Kim notes that 779-type laws could help advance the PCI DSS regulation, which is also aimed at helping card issuers force retailers to better protect account data.
"What I find particularly interesting is the fact that this particular bill actually codifies the PCI DSS, prohibiting retailers and other merchants from storing sensitive authentication data, in addition to requiring merchants to use strong encryption and access controls," Kim wrote in a recent blog post.
She continues:
"What I'd like to know is whether or not a PCI compliant merchant is provided with safe harbor -- meaning that if they are indeed compliant with the PCI standards but experience a security breach, they will not have to cover issuer costs of notifying customers and reissuing cards. This has not yet been clarified. In my opinion, a PCI-compliant merchant should not have to cover these costs, as they’ve been doing everything they can to protect customer data (after all, the PCI standards are data security 'best practices,' are they not?)."
It's certainly interesting food for thought.
In the end, it sounds like we have to thank our Californian neighbors for again leading the charge in this arena.
Meanwhile, I'm holding out for Hollywood to produce "Attack of the Killer Data Incident."
Posted by Matt Hines on September 21, 2007 12:29 PM
RATE THIS ARTICLE:
-

- COMMENTS
If a company has a data breach even though they're PCI compliant, *somebody* still has to pay for issuing new cards to those affected. Maybe it's not the company's fault - but it certainly isn't the banks' fault either. Is there insurance for this kind of thing?
Posted by: Sue at September 26, 2007 03:17 PMActually, I've been briefed on both data breach and compliance insurance programs -- and by some fairly large carriers including AIG.
Posted by: Matt Hines at September 27, 2007 09:53 AMIn AB 779, proposed Civil Code Section 1724.4(b) is poorly drafted and confusing. It is not clear whether 1724.4(b) covers Internet and mail-order merchants (although the legislature probably did desire to cover those merchants). 1724.4(b)(2) is muddled about what does and does not constitute "sensitive authentication data" that a merchant is forbidden from storing. A literal reading of the words of 1724.4(b)(2) would forbid merchants from storing zip codes, even though Internet and mail-order merchants need to store zip codes for operational purposes. Pending Section 1724.4(b)'s poorly crafted language will be a roadblock as innovators try to invent the next PayPal. --Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas
Posted by: Benjamin Wright at October 4, 2007 05:22 PMTOP STORIES
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

- Remote Access: Maintain Security and Decrease the Burden on IT
- Beyond AntiVirus: Symantec Endpoint Protection
- What Every Enterprise Needs to Know About VDI

- Disaster Recovery in Minutes
- Protecting Microsoft(R) Applications
- Reduce Recovery Times and Tape Costs





