RSS
Why Bother With Data Protection?
from the thanks-for-the-help dept
We've pointed out in our coverage of companies' data leaks that there's little incentive for them to spend much time or many resources on data protection, since the repercussions and costs of leaks are minimal. An interesting piece from Security Focus has taken a closer look at a case in which a person sued their student loan company after their information -- along with 550,000 other people's -- was leaked when a contractor's laptop was stolen. The court ruled in favor of the loan company, with the decision resting on whether or not the company had taken "reasonable" precautions to protect data. It's a totally subjective standard that's superficially imposed. As the article points out, the court said that the company had security policies and "safeguards" in place, but never actually examined whether or not they were effective, enforced or proper. Apparently the mere existence of some type of policy -- regardless of what that policy actually is -- is now enough for companies to eschew any liability for leaking consumers' data.
9 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Now you tell me
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
re: Why bother with data protection
The reasonable standards rule is established jurisprudential precedent, specifically the "Hand Rule" for assessing liability, named after Justice Learned Hand in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169, 174 (2nd Circuit 1947).
But to be less legalistic, everyone should realize that the absence of liability judgements that sting is a temporary condition and, IMHO, the absence of software liability is likewise a temporary condition. The fraction of corporate wealth that is data is rising (i.e., the valuation of data is rising faster than the valuation of the companies who hold it) and thus all the rules about the prudent man, reasonable care, strict liability, tort, and so forth are all in play and must soon conform to a world in which damage to a data asset can only be treated with equivalent gravity to burning down the factory or selling a defective minivan. The larger law firms are all now fielding data liability or data protection practices and it is raining regulations (viz., new ways you can be found to be liable for someone else's hurt).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
How lame
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How lame
I can see it now. If your data is "exposed", you can file a claim with the corporation responsible and, if you claim is legitimate, you will be entitled to $250.
Now, you just have to find the "responsible" company ("Oh, wait, that was a subcontractor, not us!"), find the obscure link on their website, file your claim, have it rejected, appeal the rejection, spend hours gathering information about your claim, spend more hours on hold, have your claim approved, wait six months, receive check, deposit check in bank, while at bank find out that your identity has been stolen, threaten to sue bank, bank manager says that your "claim" has already been resolved, realize that you are completely screwed.
Sound about right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: How lame
[nods to DNA]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Respond
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment