TJX Settles Investor Lawsuit Related to Data Breach

According to a report in the Boston Globe, TJX has settled a lawsuit brought by the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System, a TJX stockholder, which had alleged that the TJX board of directors failed to protect customers’ personal data, apparently in connection with Alberto Gonzalez breachBloomberg News has reported the case was settled for $595,000 in legal fees and an agreement regarding enhanced oversight of customer files.   There is no reference to this suit in TJX's most recent Form 10-Q

Ponemon Study Finds Average Cost of Data Breach Was $3.4 million in 2009

Last week, the Ponemon Institute and PGP Corporation released the results of their Global 2009 Annual Study on Cost of a Data Breach (.pdf) [available directly from EncryptionReports].  The highlights of the survey were announced in PGP's press release.  Ponemon surveyed companies in the U.S., UK, Germany, Australia and France and found that in 2009, the average cost of a data breach was $3.4 million.  That is $142 per customer affected by the breach. 

Unfortunately for U.S. businesses, the survey found that data security breaches In the U.S. were more expensive that in other countries, $204 per customer on average.  The survery found that the existence of breach notification laws, such as the 45 state notification laws adopted in the U.S., correspond to substantially increased costs of data breaches.

The survey's other findings include:

  • The most expensive breach remediation cost one U.S. company $31 million, while the least expensive was $750,000.
  • 35% of all breaches involved outsourced data provided to third parties, while 36% of breaches were caused by hackers.
  • Businesses that have a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) incurred reduced costs for data breaches, 21% less on average.

 

One Million Impacted by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee Data Breach: How Do You Remediate on that Scale?

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee announced last week that nearly 1 million of its members have been affected by the theft of hard drives containing unencrypted personal data.  BCBSTN had previously announced in January that 1.6 million files with unencrypted personal and protected health information of about 500,000 members in 32 states were breached in October 2009, due to a theft of 58 hard drives.

While the breach itself is significant for its size, the subsequent remediation efforts are also worthy of note.  As of April 2, a total 998,422 current and former BCBSTN members have been identified and 550,873 notifications have been sent indicating that their personal information was included on the stolen hard drives. 

BCBSTN has published a detailed analysis that explains how it has gone about remediating the breach.  The affected individuals have been broken into tiers. There are 238,589 members in the Tier 3 category – who had the most data on the stolen hard drives (their name, address, Blue Cross member ID number, diagnosis, Social Security number and/or date of birth).  Those in Tier 3 have been sent a notification detailing the services available to them through BCBSTN. They will receive free credit monitoring for one year, free identity monitoring and access to the Kroll ID TheftSmart program free for one year. 

Another 312,284 current and former members fell into the Tier 2 category (they had their name, address, Blue Cross member ID number, date of birth and/or diagnosis on the hard drives).  An additional 447,549 current and former members were placed in the "lowest" category – Tier 1 -- for having their name, address, Blue Cross member ID number and/or date of birth on the hard drives.  Those current and former members in Tiers 1 and 2 will receive access to the Kroll ID TheftSmart program free for one year.

Microsoft No Longer Seeking Removal of Cryptome or Leaked Compliance Handbook

Last week, lawyers from Microsoft issued a demand under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) seeking the removal of leaked copies of Microsoft's "Global Criminal Compliance Handbook" that pulled website Cryptome.org from the Internet, at least temporarily.  The DMCA provides copyright owners with the ability to request that internet service providers remove infringing materials from websites.  Microsoft's DMCA demand to Cryptome's service provider, Network Solutions, apparently resulted in removing Cryptome from the Web entirely, until Microsoft attorneys sent an email withdrawing the DMCA takedown demand.

Microsoft made this public statement:

Like all service providers, Microsoft must respond to lawful requests from law enforcement agencies to provide information related to criminal investigations. We take our responsibility to protect our customers privacy very seriously, so have specific guidelines that we use when responding to law enforcement requests. In this case, we did not ask that this site be taken down, only that Microsoft copyrighted content be removed. We are requesting to have the site restored and are no longer seeking the document’s removal.

Cryptome advertises itself as a site that "welcomes documents for publication that are prohibited by governments worldwide."  The site also promises that "[d]ocuments are removed from this site only by order served directly by a US court having jurisdiction." 

The Microsoft Compliance Handbook, dated March 2008, is a guide for law enforcement officers seeking to investigate users of Microsoft services such as Hotmail email, IM, Windows Live and other services.  The Handbook outlines the data Microsoft keeps with respect to its users and provides law enforcement with instructions on what legal process is necessary for investigators to gain access to specific information.  In the Handbook, Microsoft offers to provide the following information to investigators in response to a subpoena:

Basic subscriber information includ[ing] name, address, length of service (start date), screen names, other email accounts, IP address/IP logs/Usage logs, billing information, content (other than e-mail, such as in Windows Live Spaces and MSN Groups) and e-mail content more than 180 days old . . . .

This provision contrasts with Microsoft's limits on access to other user data, such as recent email,  "e-mail address book, Messenger contact lists, . . . [and] internet usage logs."  According to the Handbook, Microsoft will release this data in response to a search warrant or court order which, unlike a subpoena, must be approved by a judge after the government presents sufficient evidence.

Posts at Cryptome, as well as CNet, Tom's Hardware, The Register,describe the Handbook variously as a "spy guide" and "wiretap guide."  Cooperation with government agencies has been a touchy subject for privacy advocates and service providers in the wake of alleged abuses by some that occurred after the 2001 terrorist attacks.  However, the heart of the controversy generally has been the disclosure of customer information without any legal process or court involvement.  In this case, Microsoft's Handbook merely identifies what data is available in response to formal legal process, such as subpoenas, warrants and court orders. 

 

HHS Reports 35 Breaches Impacting 500 or More People

At the end of February, the HHS Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) posted on its website a list of HIPAA “covered entities” that have reported breaches of unsecured health information affecting more than 500 individuals.  OCR’s posting showed 35 health data breaches that impacted over 700,000 individuals (with individual breaches ranging in size from 359,000 individuals, due to the theft of a  laptop to 501 individuals impacted by the theft of a portable USB device). 

This posting by OCR was required by the August 2009 Interim Final Rule, which was issued pursuant to the HITECH Act.  In particular, § 164.408 of this breach notification interim final rule implements § 13402(e)(3) of the HITECH Act. The rule became effective September 23, 2009. 

Under this rule, breaches that affected 500 or more individuals must be reported to OCR within 60 days, via an OCR online notification form.  Training materials and related guidance on breach notification can be found on the OCR web site.  

Incident(s) of the Week: Recent Updates from Prior Incidents

1.  The FTC Fines Las Vegas Man $35,000 for Dumping Customer Financial Records In Public Dumpster

This week, the FTC finalized a $35,000 settlement with Gregory Navone, the real estate broker who left 40 boxes of customer tax returns, bank statements, consumer reports and other financial records in a public dumpster behind an office building in Las Vegas.  The defendant agreed to the fine, which amounts to $875 per box, as well as a stipulated order (.pdf) requiring him to adopt a comprehensive written information security program.  We first posted on this case a year ago, after the FTC filed its complaint (.pdf). 

In addition to the dumping of consumer financial information, the FTC alleging that Navone had failed to implement physical and electronic security procedures and or take reasonable steps to secure the customer records he stored at home in his garage.  According to the FTC, these activities violated the FTC Act, the Federal Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Navone's own information security policy which read:

We take our responsibility to protect the privacy and confidentiality of customer information very seriously.  We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to store and secure information about you from unauthorized access, alteration and destruction.

(See Complaint (.pdf), Para. 9).  Everyone subject to document destruction laws may want to note this case and keep in mind that $35,000 is the fine imposed on an individual / small business.

 2.  Fight Breaks Out Over Whether Hacker Responsible For Largest Data Breach In History Suffers From "Internet Addiction"

In December, Albert Gonzalez, aka "segvec," "soupnazi" and "j4guar17" pled guilty to charges that he masterminded the theft of over 100 million consumer credit card numbers and other financial information from Heartland Payment Systems, 7-Eleven and other companies.  We posted on his indictment last August and again on his curious role as government informant.  The public recently gained a new window on Gonzalez's soul from filings made by defense attorneys that portray the hacker as an "Internet addicted" youth compelled to commit cybercrime.  Collecting statements from Gonzalez's psychologist, family members and a former girlfriend, the defendant's sentencing memorandum (.pdf) provides an interesting point of view on the life of the hacker:

As a young boy, Gonzalez was an outwardly normal enough kid -- he had friends, engaged in activities, worked alongside his father, received good grades in school, and was part of a warm and loving family which continues to stand by him.  In middle school, things began to change, and by high school Gonzalez had become a different person -- a loner, without friends, who passed up normal teenage activities, including dating, to devote himself to his new-found and rapidly escalating obsession: computers.

*    *    *

Seeking to break Gonzalez of his computer habit, his mother periodically sought to deny him access to his computer or to at least curtail his usage, once putting it in his sister's room.  Rather than be deprived of access to his computer, Gonzalez would go to his sister's room in the middle of the night to use it.  Gonzalez's social contacts narrowed to computer chat rooms where he communicated with others with knowledge of computers and to meetings of other computer-savvy individuals, many of whom were hackers and from whom he learned much that we would, unfortunately, later convert to unlawful purposes.

*    *    *

[B]y [ ] early 2002 -- Gonzalez, age 21, had developed a serious drug and alcohol problem . . . which played a substantial role in the subsequent course of his life.  This is not to say that his substance abuse affected Gonzalez' [sic] ability to tell right from wrong.  It did not, and he knew when he turned to cyber-crime that it was wrong.  What it did do, however, was contribute to his inability to stop himself.  What developed over time was a destructive cycle of using drugs to permit him to stay awake and alert for long hours at the computer but also using them to try to get away from the computer . . . .

*    *    *

Computers . . . had become the center of his life, his raison-d'etre, if you will.  He and his computer in many ways became one: he though in computer-speak instead of normal words, and, when his computer was infected by a virus, [he] referred to the event as if it were he, himself, who had gotten the virus.

Describing Gonzalez as unable to stop his urge to commit cybercrime, defense counsel has asked the Court to sentence him to 15 years in prison, the minimum sentence permitted.  Last week, federal prosecutors renewed their request to have a government psychologist examine Gonzalez to combat the defendant's claim that his "internet addiction" merits leniency within the 15 to 25 year sentencing range. 

Is Your Password Still "123456"? If So, It's Time for a Change

If you or your co-workers use any of the passwords listed below, you are asking to be hacked.  According to a report from the consulting firm Imperva, this list reflects an analysis of some 32 million passwords that an unknown hacker stole in December 2009 from RockYou, a company that makes software for users of social networking sites.  Somewhat shockingly, the password "123456" was used by nearly 1% of all RockYou users; the "top 20" RockYou passwords are reproduced below:   

1.    123456
2.    12345
3.    123456789
4.     Password
5.     iloveyou
6.    princess
7.    rockyou
8.    1234567
9.    12345678
10.   abc123
11.   Nicole
12.   Daniel
13.   babygirl
14.   monkey
15.   Jessica
16.   Lovely
17.   michael
18.   Ashley
19.   654321
20.   Qwerty

Hackers around the world now have this list of 32 million passwords and are using it to make brute force attacks on accounts and networks.  How can you defend yourself?  Change and toughen your passwords, lengthening them and adding a mix of letters and numbers.  If you are trying to defend your company's network, you need to adopt and enforce more rigorous password policies.  Tougher passwords will not make you or your networks hack-proof, but they will put you ahead of the thousands of people who still use "123456."

Connecticut AG Opens New Era in HIPAA Enforcement with Health Net Suit

In the first instance of a state attorney general exercising the new powers granted by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act ("HITECH Act"), Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (and recently announced candidate for the U.S. Senate) filed suit today against Health Net of Connecticut, Inc. for failing to secure private patient medical records and financial information involving 446,000 enrollees in Connecticut and for failing to promptly notify consumers of the security breach.  AG Blumenthal is also seeking a court order to require Health Net to encrypt any protected health information (“PHI”) contained on a portable electronic device.

The AG’s suit stems from events that occurred in May 2009, when he alleges Health Net learned that a portable computer disk drive disappeared from a company office. The disk contained protected health information, Social Security numbers, and bank account numbers for approximately 446,000 of its past and present Connecticut enrollees.  AG Blumenthal further alleges that Health Net failed to promptly notify his office or other Connecticut authorities of this missing information. The missing information is said to include 27.7 million scanned pages of over 120 different types of documents, including insurance claim forms, membership forms, appeals and grievances, correspondence and medical records.  

According to an investigative report by Kroll Inc., a computer forensic consulting firm hired by Health Net, the data was not encrypted or otherwise protected from access and viewing by unauthorized persons or third parties, but rather was viewable through the use of commonly available software. The Connecticut Attorney General alleges that it was not until six months after Health Net discovered the breach that it posted a notice on its website, and then sent letters to consumers on a rolling mailing basis beginning on November 30, 2009.

HIPAA Breach Notification Made Simple -- Just Fill in the Blanks

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) has tried to make a HIPAA security breach easy to report, with its newly-released online “Notice to the Secretary of HHS of Breach of Unsecured Protected Health Information.” 

The online form is straightforward, featuring pull-down options tied to the new HITECH rules:  it will let you report whether your breach is for more than 500 individuals (or fewer than that), the type and location of the breach, etc.  OCR estimates the form will take 15-30 minutes to complete. 

Interestingly, the form does not require a statement on penalty of perjury from the submitting party, only a statement that I attest, to the best of my knowledge, that the above information is accurate.”  This could be seen to be an attempt to encourage reporting, by not saddling breach reporters with potential liability for making false statements to the government.  However, it would also seem to encourage anonymous reporting, via the use of an alias.

Congressional Aide Shares Secret Ethics List With The World

Last week, it was learned that a secret report of the U.S. House of Representatives Ethics Committee was disclosed -- apparently inadvertently -- by a junior committee staff member.  This staff apparently stored the file on a home computer that also ran a "peer-to-peer" file-sharing service.  Just as peer-to-peer services let you share music and games, they also can give outside users access to other files on your computer, including in this case secret Congressional reports.  The 22-page "Committee on Standards Weekly Summary Report" contained summaries of ethics investigations of dozens of House members and some of their staff.

Although "peer-to-peer" services have caused breaches of sensitive financial, defense-related and personal data from government sites in the past, it seems like the federal government has not learned its lesson (even as it tries to impose Fed Flags rules and the HITECH Act on the private sector).

Incident of the Week: ChoicePoint Settles FTC Charges That It Failed To Turn On "Key Monitoring Tool"

This week, ChoicePoint, Inc. finalized its settlement with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to resolve charges stemming from a 2008 breach that compromised the personal information of 13,750 consumers.  According to the FTC, the breach occurred because ChoicePoint implemented a security tool designed to detect unauthorized access to its databases, but "failed to detect that the security tool was off" for a period of four months.  Apparently, during this outtage, "an unknown person conducted unauthorized searches of a ChoicePoint database containing sensitive consumer information, including Social Security numbers."  The unauthorized access apparently occurred between August 8, 2008 and September 8, 2008.  According to ChoicePoint, the incident occurred because "a former ChoicePoint government customer failed to properly safeguard one of its user IDs."  (See ChoicePoint's news release.) ChoicePoint voluntarily approached the FTC when it discovered the breach. 

ChoicePoint, which suffered a more significant breach in 2005, was already subject to a 2006 order requiring that the company implement a comprehensive information security program.  (See the FTC's materials on the prior breach.)  The FTC and ChoicePoint dispute whether the current breach was the result of failing to meet its security obligations under the 2006 order.  The supplemental stipulated judgment entered this week (.pdf) provides that ChoicePoint will pay $275,000 into a fund to redress potential harm to consumers and submit to biennial security assessments.

This case is notable, even though the size of the breach and the monetary payment involved are relatively modest, because the underlying breach allegedly resulted from the ineffective implementation of security tools. In practice, many companies react to information security regulations by purchasing a suite of security products. But are these tools being utilized effectively? At least according to the FTC, companies may face sanctions if their adopted security measures are not turned on and managed appropriately.

Links:

 

Incident of the Week: Ever-Growing Breach Involving Passwords for Hotmail, Gmail, Yahoo, AOL, Earthlink and Comcast

What started out as an incident involving the leak of 10,000 user names and passwords for Windows Live Hotmail accounts continues to grow, both in terms of users and companies affected.  According to reports from the beginning of the week, more than 10,000 user names and passwords from Hotmail were posted by an anonymous user on the site pastebin.com.  The list was limited to accounts starting in A and B, leaving the fear that numerous more accounts had been affected.  The original reports speculated that the breach was the result of a hack of Hotmail or a phishing attack.  But more information is surfacing that indicates that the breach is much larger than many first thought.

Subsequent reports have revealed that as many as 20,000 accounts have been compromised across numerous email providers, including Yahoo, AOL, Comcast, Earthlink and others, and that .  These reports noted that the affected companies believed that the breaches occurred because of phishing attacks (although one researcher, Mary Landesman, who works for ScanSafe, has said that "it's more likely that the massive lists . . . were harvested by botnets that infected PCs with keylogging or data stealing Trojan horses."

As more details emerge, it seems that more questions remain to be answered.  Exactly how many passwords have been compromised, and from how many companies?  Was the breach due to a single massive phishing attack, multiple smaller fishing attacks, or some type of malware? Why were lists of affected users posted online?  Whatever the answers, it might be a good idea to take a few minutes to change your email passwords from a computer that has been swept for viruses and malware.

Links:

 

Incident(s) of the Week: Double Feature

Incident 1: UNC Data Breach Exposes Information On Over 100,000 Women Listed In Mammogram Registry

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill recently disclosed a data breach that exposed information on 160,000 women, including the Social Security Numbers of 114,000.  Original reports estimated that more than 200,000 women were affected.  The source of the breach was a computer intrusion into a server housing the Carolina Mammography Registry, which is "a 14-year-old project that compiles and analyzes mammography data submitted by radiologists across North Carolina."

Evidently, the breach was discovered in July, but it may have occurred over two years ago.  According to Matt Mauro, chairman of the UNC Department of Radiology, traces of computer viruses were found on a UNC School of computer server dating back to 2007 were found on the server.  The school delayed in notifying those affected while it conducted a forensic investigation to determine exactly who was affected.  To this point, however, the school still does not know who committed the breach or where the attack originated from, how the server (which had all required security measures) was breached, or whether any data was actually downloaded.

Links:

Incident 2: Massachusetts Inmate Pleads Guilty to Charges that He Hacked Prison Computer While Incarcerated, Accessed Personal Information On 1,100 Correctional Officers

On September 14, 2009, Francis G. Janosko pled guilty to charges that he hacked a legal research computer provided to inmates in the Plymouth County Correctional Facility.  A highly restricted computer terminal was provided to inmates for the sole purpose of allowing them access to legal research resources.  Janosko apparently circumvented security measures restricting the computer to legal research tools and obtained accessed the administrator's username and password, the prison's internal network, and a report listing the names, birthdays, Social Security Numbers and contact information for 1,100 current and former prison personnel.  He also used the computer to send email and download publicly-available photographs and videos.

A grand jury in Boston indicted Janosko for these activities about a year ago in a sealed indictment (.pdf).  In the plea agreement (.pdf) recently reached with the U.S. Attorney's Office in Boston, federal prosecutors have agreed to dismiss the original charge of aggravated identity theft in exchange for Janosko's guilty plea to charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.  Janosko has agreed to accept an additional incarceration of 18 months for the hack.  Sentencing in the case is scheduled for December 15th.

California Hospital Fined $187,500 For Octuplet Mom Breach

As we reported on April 2, a California hospital breached the privacy of the infamous "OctoMom," Nadya Suleman.  When the breach was discovered, Kaiser Permanente’s hospital in Bellflower, California fired 15 employees.  These violations also were reported by Kaiser to the California Department of Public Health, which has announced a $187,500 administrative penalty against Kaiser.  CDPH has determined that the hospital "failed to prevent unauthorized access to patients’ medical information, as required by Section 1280.15 of the Health and Safety Code. The hospital compromised the privacy of four patients when eight employees improperly accessed records." 

The penalty amount of $187,500 represents "$100,000 for the first breach of four individual’s medical record and $87,500 for five additional breaches of those medical records after the first."  In addition to the penalty, the Kaiser facility is required to submit a plan of correction to CDPH within 10 working days and implement a plan of correction to prevent future incidents.

Garbage Dump in Ghana A Gold Mine For Sensitive Information

In June, a team of researchers investigating the disposal of electronics in Ghana for PBS series Frontline discovered that computers dumped in Ghana still contained highly sensitive data from their prior owners. The researchers procured seven hard drives from the dump in Ghana and they contained credit card numbers and resumes.  The highlight of the investigation was when they discovered unencrypted information from government contractor Northrop Grumman.  The hard drives were was obtained by Frontline for $40.

Northrop Grumman said in a statement to IT World, that it believes the hard drive was stolen from an unidentified contractor hired to dispose of the computer, though that does not appear to explain how the hard drive ended up in a dump in Ghana with its information intact.  Apparently, sources in Ghana indicated to the Frontline team that "data thieves" routinely search through disposed electronics for valuable information.

The moral of this story is that electronic media, even hard drives that have been wiped of sensitive data, may retain residual information.  When disposing of them, care should be taken to ensure that information is no longer recoverable. Some suggest physically destroying hard drives containing sensitive information before disposing of them. The FTC provides a more detailed list of disposal recommendations at their OnGuradOnline website.

Links:

 

AMA Adopts Principles on EMR Breach

In what it describes as an effort "[t]o protect the privacy and security of patients," the American Medical Association (AMA) last week adopted a lengthy report and related principles for physicians to follow in the event a patient's electronic medical record were to be breached.  The new AMA guidelines ask physicians to:

  1. ensure patients are properly informed of the breach and the potential for harm;
  2. follow ethically appropriate procedures for disclosure, including:
    a) confidential disclosure of the breach in a timely manner; and
    b) describing what information was subject to the breach, how the breach happened, corrective actions that have been taken, and steps the patient can take to further minimize adverse consequences;
  3. support responses to security breaches that place the interests of patients above those of physician, medical practice or institution; and 
  4. to the extent possible, provide information to patients to enable them to diminish potential adverse consequences of the breach of personal health information.

The report itself states that the "suggestions are not intended to be comprehensive" and its right -- these general rules raise more questions than they answer: 

i) do these suggestions conflict with federal or state law?
ii) might disclosure to a mentally fragile patient not be in the patient's best interest?
iii) how is a physician to know the "potential for harm"?

In particular, that third element -- placing the interests of patients above those of physicians, their practice or hospital -- is going to make this difficult for physicians in the real world to adopt.  What about when the interests are not clear, or the interests of patients conflict?  No answers to these questions are provided by the AMA.

It's not clear why the AMA felt compelled to jump into the EMR fray, given that there's no lack of state or federal regulation or attention at this point.  It's even less clear whether physicians will pay any attention or be able to make sense out of these suggestions.

Update on Hackers Ransom Demand for Virginia Prescription Database

Last month, an unusual ransom demand was made on the Commonwealth of Virginia.  See Encryption Used By Hackers to Demand Ransom for Virginia Prescription Database, May 5, 2009.  In a posting late last week, the Virgina Department of Health Professions announced that it had sent a letter to affected individuals ("persons whose PMP records contained a nine-digit number that could be a social security number").  If you are crafting such a notice for your own use, this letter is of particular note.  While it isn't a universally-approved model, it would seem like a pretty good initial response to a claim of inadequate notice that you used the same form that the Commonwealth of Virginia used.

Interview with M. Eric Johnson, Part 3

In this, the third and final part of Security, Privacy and the Law’s interview with M. Eric Johnson (Part 1 may be found here and Part 2 is here), Dr. Johnson talks about why the fragmented nature of the American healthcare system is so dangerous and why he believes greater consolidation would better protect private information. He also talks about the specific problems associated with data security on peer-to-peer file sharing networks.

Continue Reading...

Interview with M. Eric Johnson, Part 2

In this, the second part of Privacy, Security and the Law’s three part interview with M. Eric Johnson (begun here), Dr. Johnson talks about why he thinks the healthcare sector is uniquely vulnerable to security breaches and what special problems that vulnerability poses.

Continue Reading...

Interview with M. Eric Johnson, author of "Data Hemorrhages in the Health-Care Sector"

I recently had the chance to sit down with M. Eric Johnson, Director of Tuck’s Glassmeyer/McNamee Center for Digital Strategies and Professor of Operations Management at the Tuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, to talk about his recent paper “Data Hemorrhages in the Health-Care Sector” (.pdf).   The results of Dr. Johnson’s study were startling.  For instance, his finding that a great deal of personal patient information is openly available on Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file sharing networks resulted in a great deal of media attention from publications dealing with privacy like SC Magazine, technology publications like Wired, and general interest publications like USA Today.  We are thrilled that Dr. Johnson agreed to do a full interview with Security, Privacy, and The Law.

Because the interview is long and covers a number of important topics of interest, we will post the interview in three parts.  The first installment of the interview follows below.  In this part of the interview, Dr. Johnson discusses how he came to be interested in information security, how he conducted his research, and his findings about just how much personal health information is available on P2P networks.
 

Continue Reading...

Big Bump in Federal Cybersecurity Spending?

The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, March 18, 2009 that, worried about the dangers of attacks launched against the nation's computer systems, the federal government is likely to spend between $15 and $30 billion on cybersecurity in the next five years. The intelligence experts interviewed by the Journal estimate that U.S. losses from data breaches to be in the billions of dollars annually and that future attacks could cause physical harm or serious financial chaos. 

While future spending levels will not be set until after the White House's 60-day review of the nation's information infrastructure is completed,  the potential move has sent major defense contractors and consulting groups scrambling to capture a share of the potential spending. The Journal reports that defense contractors are adding, growing, and consolidating their cybersecurity capabilities and bumping up against already established consulting firms in the process. Foreign defense contractors are also apparently looking to become involved and are buying smaller firms and making strategic hires to position themselves.

Links:

OPSEC, Data Security and A-Rod

The saga of Yankee superstar Alex Rodriguez (“A-Rod”) and the revelation of his past steroid use already exemplifies the far-reaching implications of information security practices. But the story is far from over. While the media firestorm over A-Rod appears to be dying down, the fate of the identities of 103 other Major League Baseball players who tested positive for steroid use in 2003 remains undecided. And the outcome of a motion now before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may affect not only those 103 baseball players, but numerous athletes from other sports whose drug test results were seized by government investigators in 2004. Yet the entire story might never have existed had good OPSEC practices been in place. 

OPSEC – an acronym for Operations Security – is one of the cornerstones of counterintelligence strategy. The Department of Defense definition of OPSEC (.pdf) is “a process of identifying critical information and analyzing friendly actions . . . and other activities to (1) identify actions that can be observed by adversary intelligence systems, (2) determine indicators that hostile intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical intelligence in time to be useful to adversaries, and (3) selecting and executing measures that eliminate or reduce… the vulnerabilities of friendly actions to adversary exploitation.” But OPSEC does not just apply to military organizations. It should be a foundational principle for all security architecture. 

Continue Reading...

Data Breach: Not Only Can Happen to You, and Your Competitors (but Now It's Being Publicly Reported)

As state data breach reporting regimes develop, we are going to be seeing more reporting of breaches to law enforcement authorities. If you want to see what this abstract concept of “reporting” looks like (and how your own reports might be listed for the public to see), go to the web site of the New Hampshire Attorney General. On that site, you can read about 20 New Hampshire breaches that have been reported thus far in 2009 for that modestly sized state. And if you want to get a feel for the national scope of data breaches, check out the Identify Theft Resource Center. As of last week, they list 121 breaches and some 1,552,273 exposed records.  That's more than a breach per day (and over 17,000 exposed records per day).

Man Sentenced to 12 Months of Probation and Community Service for Illegal Access to Obama's Passport Records

Dwayne F. Cross, the second of three people who have plead guilty to illegally accessing then Presidential Candidate Barack Obama’s passport files was sentenced to 12 months probation and 100 hours of community service on Monday. Mr. Cross admitted to accessing State Department passport records involving over 150 individuals, including celebrities, family members, and personal acquaintances, out of “idle curiosity”. These files contained a wealth of personal information including social security numbers, phone numbers, emergency contact information, and photographs.

Continue Reading...

Departing Employees Are Increasingly Stealing Company Information

As discussed by Mike Rosen on Foley Hoag's Noncompete Blog here, and reported by the Washington Post and CNN, a recently released report by Symantec Corp. and the Ponemon Institute (which can be found here) revealed that 59% of ex-employees who leave their employment are stealing company information, and 67% of those who admitted to stealing company information also admitted that they used that information to leverage a new job.

As I posted back in early February, another recent report, this one from McAfee, concluded that the shrinking economy and growing ranks of unemployed were increasing incentives for insiders to steal confidential information.  The Ponemon report seems to bear this out.

What's troubling is that the Ponemon report found that only "15% of respondents' companies review or perform an audit of the paper and/or electronic documents employees are taking.  If they conduct a review, 45% say it was not complete and 29% say it was superficial."  According to the McAfee report, however, 68% of the senior IT decision-makers surveyed cited insider threats as the top threat to essential information.  Taking these two reports together, it appears that companies understand that their (and their customers') confidential information is vulnerable to insider threats, yet they are not taking the necessary steps to secure that information from departing employees.  In this current climate, where data breaches are expanding (both in terms of numbers and size), it is imperative for companies to adopt and implement comprehensive approaches to ensure the security of proprietary information accessible to a departing employee and to minimize the accessibility of such information.

Links:

  • The Washington Post Article "Data Theft Common by Departing Employees" can be found here.
  • The cnn.com article can be found here.
  • The Ponemon report is available for download here (requires registration). 
  • The post on the Ponemon report at the Massachusetts Noncompete Law Blog can be found here.

Highlights from the IAPP Privacy Summit - March 11-13, 2009 Washington, D.C.

Between March 11, 2009 and March 13, 2009, the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) hosted a Privacy Summit in Washington, D.C. that featured keynote presentations from fraud expert Frank W. Abagnale and information security guru Bruce Schneier. The three-day event included dozens of breakout sessions with industry experts and government officials.  Read some of the highlights below.

Continue Reading...

Has the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum Decided to Abandon Efforts to Draft Federal Privacy Legislation?

In early February, I noted that a group called the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum (“CPLF”), which includes companies such as eBay, Microsoft, Google and Hewlett Packard, had released a statement calling for comprehensive harmonized federal privacy legislation and would be outlining recommendations for such legislation this month. Apparently, the CPLF’s focus has shifted. According to a BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, 8 PVLR 331, the CPLF “has decided to abandon efforts to develop a set of principles for omnibus U.S. privacy legislation” and is instead “now focused on crafting an industry-wide self-regulatory framework that can be tested over time with a broad range of organizations.” The group has also changed its name to the Business Forum for Consumer Privacy, although it “is still working out legal issues involved with officially becoming a new organization.”

Continue Reading...

$150,000 Penalty for Disclosure of Physician Information

This settlement is particularly interesting, given that it appears to stem from a voluntary disclosure, without any prejudice to any of the physicians whose information was disclosed.  Despite those mitigating factors, the disclosure still resulted in a six-figure penalty. As such, this is another suggestion that the days of soft enforcement of health-related information confidentiality are over.

The Queen's Medical Center ("QMC") of Hawaii recently agreed to pay $150,500 in civil money penalties for allegedly violating the confidentiality requirements applicable to National Practitioner Data Bank ("NPDB") information. OIG alleged that QMC improperly disclosed confidential information.

<>According to the settlement documents, QMC obtained the NPDB information and disclosed it to QMC’s captive insurance carrier, which in turn disclosed to its insurance broker.

 

Text of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, security and privacy provisions

For those who want to see the source document, we have provided this link to the text of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  The health security and privacy provisions start at Section 13000, around page 112.

Adding to the Patchwork: HITECH Act Sets New "Floor" for Data Breach Notification of Certain Patient Information

On Tuesday, February 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the widely-debated federal economic stimulus package, officially titled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and with it, enacted the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH Act). Much of the media attention on the HITECH Act has focused on the policies promoting health information technology a topic that President Obama touted throughout his campaign. However, the HITECH Act also contains myriad regulations that expand the security and privacy provisions of the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), and generally extends some of those regulations to non-HIPAA-covered vendors of personal health records and their business partners.

If you are hoping that federal lawmakers have used the HITECH Act to finally set a national standard for patient medical information, however, you will be disappointed.

The HITECH Act, like HIPAA, preempts any contrary state laws, but leaves intact any state laws and regulations that impose stricter requirements on the handling of patient information. As a practical matter, this means that if you are covered by HIPAA and the HITECH Act you must meet new minimum standards while continuing to monitor and comply with the ever-increasing patchwork of laws governing patient information in every state in which you operate.

What follows is a more detailed discussion of the provisions of the HITECH Act and how it attempts to provide additional security for patients' health information.

Continue Reading...

ALERT: Massachusetts Gives Businesses Until January 1, 2010 to Adopt Information Security Programs To Comply With Recent Identity Theft Regulations

On Thursday, February 12, 2009, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR) issued a public statement indicating that it is extending the May 1, 2009 deadline to comply with recent Massachusetts identity theft regulations until January 1, 2010. 

The Massachusetts identity theft regulations affect entities that own, license, store or maintain personal information, including social security numbers, state identification numbers and financial account information, about any Massachusetts residents. Under amended regulations filed Thursday, individuals and businesses covered by the regulations must evaluate existing security measures and implement written information security programs on or before January 1, 2010. 

In the OCABR press release, Daniel C. Crane, undersecretary of the OCABR, indicated that the new deadline acknowledges that many businesses are having trouble complying with the new regulations in the wake of recent economic pressures. “We understand the impact of the current business environment, and feel this is an appropriate timeframe for companies to implement the necessary protections.” 

The new deadline makes clear that the OCABR is willing to give businesses additional time to improve information security measures, but also that regulators want all affected businesses to meet the new security standards by 2010. For most affected businesses, the new deadline does not mean they should delay their compliance efforts. Many businesses will need the additional time to analyze existing security threats and implement the necessary administrative, physical and electronic security measures. 

Links:

  • The OCABR homepage
  • The OCABR's February 12, 2009 announcement
  • The amended Massachusetts Identity Theft Regulations (17 C.M.R. 17.00-17.05) are available here (.pdf) or from the OCABR's website here (.pdf)

A bad week for the government - data breaches at federal organizations on the rise

 It has been a bad week for the federal government's own information security track record.

The first story comes from the FAA where hackers broke into the agency’s computer systems and stole personal information on some 45,000 individuals. The second story comes from Los Alamos National Laboratory, which confirmed the theft of 67 computers, 13 in the past year alone. In both instances the American people appear to have dogged a bullet. The electronic intrusion into the FAA appears to have been limited to a raid of personal information and did not interfere with air traffic control systems.  Also, the physical thefts at Los Alamos apparently did not result in the disclosure of any classified data (e.g., information on the U.S. nuclear stockpile), though what information was taken is still unknown. In both cases governmental entities that we hope would be heavily secured against  both electronic and physical thefts appear to have suffered embarassing breaches.  The moral (one hopes) is that while there may be no such thing as perfect security, all of us - including our friends in the government - may need to be working a bit harder and should have a plan in place ahead of time for managing any incidents that eventually arise.

Links:

Federal Aviation Administration website

Los Alamos National Laboratory website

Trends in Data Breach Incidents, Part 2: Avoiding Accidental Exposure

According to the Identity Theft Resource Center’s (ITRC) recently released report (.pdf) on data breaches in 2008, one of the top five causes of data breaches are what the ITRC labels “accidental exposure.”   [For our earlier coverage on the ITRC’s report see this link.] The ITRC reports that accidental exposure amount to 95 of the 656 data breaches in 2008.

ITRC considers “accidental exposure” to be those breaches caused by “inadvertent internet/web posting.” For example, consider the accidental exposure the ITRC labels as “ITRC20080709-02”. In this highly publicized case, an employee at Wagner Resource Group installed the peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire, on a computer that contained personal information relating to the company’s clients. Presumably, the employee installed the software because he wanted to download an MP3, a movie or some piece of software (in violation of copyright law). However, by failing to properly configure the software, the employee inadvertently opened up company files on the computer to any LimeWire user on the Internet. This turned out to be especially disastrous from a public relations standpoint: the data exposed included a number of powerful Washington D.C. area attorneys as well as Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The story was published on the front page of the Washington Post and received attention from other national papers, such as the L.A. Times. While the breach exposed data involving only a relatively modest number of people, 2,000 individuals, the fact that the lapse involved some high profile victims created substantial bad press. Referring to the file-sharing software, Wagner Resource Group founder Phylyp Wagner stated "I didn't even know what peer-to-peer was. I do now."

Because accidental exposures are caused by human error, a prime problem with this type of breach is that they generally make the company look much worse than a breach caused by a hacker or an ill-intentioned insider. A consumer can understand a company being outsmarted by a thief, even being compromised by a disgruntled ex-employee, but there is often much less forgiveness for companies who appear to have disclosed their information through sheer carelessness. (See the link for the Breach Blog’s candid response to the news that personal data may have been exposed by an employee of Vonage placing it online in a Google Notebook).

Protecting against accidental exposure usually does not require expensive solutions. An appropriate computer usage policy prohibits the installation of unauthorized software, like LimeWire and other peer-to-peer file sharing programs that have come under intense fire from the recording and motion picture companies in the last decade. Educating staff, whether through training programs or the occasional reminder, about what to do and what not to do may often be the least expensive solution to accidental exposure. In addition, system administrators need to make sure they are taking appropriate steps to block or monitor peer-to-peer network traffic originating from inside the company network. 

Links:

Economy Delivers A Perfect Storm In Information Security: Data Crimes Rising As Economy Stumbles

According to a recently-released report from McAfee, the downturn in the economy is creating a “perfect information security risk storm.” The report, entitled “Unsecured Economies: Protecting Vital Information,” can be found here [Note: MacAfee requires registration to downloade the report]. McAfee bases its findings on a worldwide survey of 1,000 IT decision makers.

The McAfee Report makes four key findings:

  1. Increasingly, important digital information is being moved between companies and across continents and is being lost.
  2. The global economic crisis is increasing pressure on companies to cut spending across the board, including spending on data security, which leads to increased opportunities from outside threats of cybercriminals. Moreover, increasing layoffs are increasing incentives for insiders to steal confidential information.
  3. Elements in certain countries are emerging as the main threats to data security.  According to the report, “[g]eopolitical perceptions are influencing data policy reality, as China, Pakistan, and Russia were identified as trouble zones for various legal, cultural and economic reasons.”
  4. Cybercriminals have evolved beyond basic hacking and stealing of data.  They are becoming more organized and sophisticated.

In many ways, the global economic crisis could not have come at a worse time for companies attempting to keep their data secure. As layoffs fueled by the troubled economy increase, the number of employees with the motive, means and opportunity to steal valuable data or to sabotage their employer with a damaging data breach are clearly on the rise. According to the McAfee Report, 68% of those surveyed cited “insider threats” as the top threat to essential information. “Data thefts by insiders tend to have greater financial impact given the higher level of data access.” 

Coinciding with the increased threat from insiders is a growing and increasingly sophisticated threat from outside groups of cybercriminals. For example, the McAfee report notes that “malware writers now have R&D departments and test departments” and that malware programs are “regularly updated by its developers as to which vulnerabilities to exploit.” According to one source, the number of malicious programs on the internet tripled in September 2008. 

And while the expansion of information crime has led to increased government regulation, it is clear that the complex demands of various state and federal regulatory schemes are increasing the burden on companies already struggling in the weakening global economy. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 44 states have enacted legislation requiring notification of security breaches. This leaves companies with the unenviable task of determining what state laws apply and how to make sure they are complying with scores of overlapping, potentially inconsistent state rules. This quagmire has led to calls for Congress to set a single federal standard for information security. A group called the Consumer Privacy Legislative Forum, which includes companies such as eBay, Microsoft and Hewlett Packard, released a statement calling for “comprehensive harmonized federal privacy legislation” and will be outlining recommendations for such legislation next month. The FTC also has recommended in its recent report on Social Security numbers that Congress set federal standards for information security. 

Between the increasing threats to information assets and the confusing morass of new regulations governing information security, business are stuck between a rock and a hard place while the funds and personnel needed to address the threats and comply with increased regulation are dwindling. Given recent reports that “[o]rganizations that experienced a data breach in 2008 paid an average of $6.6 million last year to rebuild their brand image and retain customers,” the only way through this perfect storm may be to push ahead with efforts to evaluate the increasing security threats and adopt reasonable measures to combat these threats, as regulators appear to be demanding.

Links:

Data Privacy and Security Meets Winnie-the-Pooh: Using Honey Pots to Protect Your Data

Most of us remember fondly the Winnie-the-Pooh stories by A.A. Milne from our childhood. One that is memorable for me is “Piglet Meets a Heffalump.” In that story, Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet plot to catch the new animal they believe is living in the Hundred Acre Wood. They have named this animal the Heffalump. They set a trap for the Heffalump, but instead of catching it, Pooh instead becomes trapped in the hole he had dug to catch the Heffalump. To add insult to injury, Pooh gets his head stuck in a pot of honey that he had attended to attract the Heffalump to the trap.[1]

Now, you may be asking what this has to do with data privacy and security. One of the new trends in the data privacy and security field is the use of what is colloquially called “honey pots.” These are attractive bits of false data or decoy computer systems intended to entice individuals to looking at things they should not be looking at and enabling you to track those events. Should you use honey pots? Are there risks involved?

Before you set up a honeypot, you will want to have clear approval among the executive leadership of your organization, because there could be loud noises that result from someone unexpectedly getting stuck in one of these honeypots. This includes Information Technology and Human Resources, which may be required to take quick action if someone is caught. Legal counsel also should review the entire honeypot program -- once you catch someone, you want to make sure the evidence will be sufficient to allow you to terminate his or her employment. You may also want to consider how you would use the information to make a referral to law enforcement. Even more importantly, you want to make sure that you are doing something that is legal, and you want to make sure your honey pot does not hurt someone unintentionally.

 


[1]Winnie-the-Pooh, A.A. Milne (1926)

Trends in Data Breach Incidents, Part 1: Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) Reports Breaches Up 47% in 2008, Hackers Only Responsible for 13.9% of All Incidents

On January 2, 2009, the Identity Theft Resource Center (ITRC) released its report(.pdf) on data breaches in the United States in 2008 (you can read the Washington Post’s primer on the ITRC’s findings here). The raw numbers are headline grabbing — 656 data breaches in 2008, a 47% increase from 2007. The sharp increase in numbers from 2007 to 2008 could be a result of an increase in data breach incidents, and most of the reporting on the ITRC’s report take this view, but it could also be due to increased media interest, new mandatory reporting laws, and a greater public interest in the issue. As in 2007, the ITRC relied on public reporting of breaches to compile its list, so the ITRC’s findings should be expected in increase as public reporting of data breach incidents increase.

The ITRC also reports that over 35.5 million personal and/or financial records are known to have been exposed in 2008. This number includes only those breaches where a public report indicated how many records were actually exposed, 402 of the 656 reported breaches including the 16 breaches where no records were actually exposed as they were encrypted or in some other way protected, and does not include any of the 254 breaches where an unknown number of records were exposed. So the actual number of exposed records is likely much higher, possibly in the range of 58 million records exposed (assuming that the breaches where the numbers are known are representative, and that the underlying math was done correctly).

Continue Reading...

Senator Feinstein Introduces Two New Security/Privacy Bills

On January 6, 2009, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) introduced two bills related to data breaches and protection of social security numbers. Bill S. 139, entitled the "Data Breach Notification Act," would require any federal agency or business entity to notify an individual of a security breach involving personal information “without unreasonable delay.” The proposed bill defines “reasonable delay” as including “any time necessary to determine the scope of the security breach, prevent further disclosures, and restore the reasonable integrity of the data systems and provide notice to law enforcement when required.” In addition to requiring notice to the affected individual(s), the bill requires that notice be provided to “major media outlets” within a state if the number of state residents affected by the breach exceeds 5,000, and also requires that notice be given to the Secret Service if the number of affected individuals exceeds 10,000 or if the affected database contains information of more than 1,000,000 individuals. The bill provides for limited exceptions for law enforcement or national security purposes. 

The bill requires that the notice include (1) a description of the categories of information that was acquired by an unauthorized person, (2) a toll-free number that the individual may use to contact the agency or business and learn what types of information the agency or business maintained about the individual, and (3) the toll-free contact telephone numbers and addresses of major credit reporting agencies. The first requirement of the notification’s content is particularly interesting, as several states (including Massachusetts) currently forbid the notification to include the nature of the breach. Bill S. 139 states that it does not provide a private right of action, meaning that a private individual may not bring suit under the bill. Finally, the bill provides that its  provisions “shall supersede any other provision of Federal law or any provision of law of any state relating to notification by a business entity . . . or agency.”

Senator Feinstein introduced a similar bill in 2007 which failed to pass the Senate. This year’s version, which has no co-sponsors, has been referred to the Judiciary Committee. 

Bill S. 141, entitled the “Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act,” is co-sponsored by Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME). It prohibits any person from displaying, selling, purchasing an individual’s Social Security number without the affirmative, express consent of the individual, subject to a number of exceptions (e.g., for national security, law enforcement, or public health purposes, or if the display is required, authorized, or excepted under any Federal law). The bill also would prohibit any federal, state, or local government from displaying Social Security numbers on public records posted on the Internet or from printing them on government checks. [These provisions parallel recent recommendations from the FTC as we Further, the bill prohibits any federal, state, or local agency from employing inmates in any position that would give the inmate access to Social Security numbers of other individuals. Finally, the bill would provide limits on when businesses may ask customers for their Social Security numbers. 

Unlike the Data Breach Notification Act, the Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act provides for a private right of action, allowing any aggrieved individual to sue for an injunction or monetary damages (which could be tripled if a court finds a willful and knowing violation). As with the Data Breach Notification Act, the Protecting the Privacy of Social Security Numbers Act has been referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Given the many challenges facing the federal government this upcoming year as it transitions into the Obama administration, it is difficult to predict whether Senator Feinstein’s bills will face resistance. However, all signs point to a recession driven boom of cybercrime, identity theft and security breaches that will continue to expand in 2009 as it did in 2008.  Given this environment, Congress will probably enact some version of these proposals sooner rather than later.

Links:

Massachusetts Businesses Ask For More Time To Comply With State Identity Theft Regulations

A number of high-profile Massachusetts businesses and industry groups have sent Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick a letter requesting that the governor reissue existing identity theft regulations and give battered businesses two additional years to develop information security programs. This comes as a prelude to the public hearing scheduled today before the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business (OCABR) regarding the upcoming May 1, 2009 deadline for businesses to comply with recent Massachusetts identity theft regulations (201 C.M.R. 17.00 et seq.).  The companies and organizations signing the letter included the Massachusetts Business Roundtable, the Massachusetts Package Store Association, the Massachusetts Hospital Associations, Google, Comcast, CitiGroup, AOL, Microsoft, The Gap, Verizon and Wal-Mart.

Mass High Tech's story on this event can be found here

Testimony of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce at the January 16, 2009 hearing can be found here.

The Privacy & Security Law Report reports that, at the hearing, representatives of employers, small businesses, financial institutions and universities asked the OCABR to extend the deadline for compliance beyond May 1st. According to these representatives, it will be “virtually impossible” for most of the covered entities to reach compliance by May 1, 2009. In addition, they urged the OCABR to review the new regulations again and make changes.   Whether the OCABR will be swayed by the views of those attending the hearing remains to be seen. Given the economic climate the costs associated with upgrading systems to meet the new regulations, it is a safe bet that most covered entities would breathe a sigh of relief if the OCABR decides to extend the compliance deadline.

2.13.2009 UPDATE: As we report in our alert, OCABR has responded to this request by filing amended regulations that postpone the compliance deadline by eight months, to January 1, 2010. 

FTC Issues Guidance to Businesses on How To Handle Social Security Numbers

Anyone mystified by what practices the FTC wants businesses to improve on or abandon in response to federal “Red Flags” regulations received some specific guidance in December, when the FTC released the report Security in Numbers - SSNs and ID Theft. The new report articulates a series of FTC recommendations with respect to the handling of Social Security numbers (SSNs) based upon the work of the President’s Identity Theft Task Force, which was established in May 2006 and led to an extensive fact finding effort summarized in the FTC’s November 2007 staff summary report (which can be found here [.pdf]). For anyone subject to new federal and state identity theft regulations, the Report helps identify some specific steps they should consider implementing by May 1, 2009, when the FTC will begin enforcing federal identity theft regulations. 

 The FTC Report first makes two key recommendations that should be considered when developing an identity theft prevention programs:

Continue Reading...

ALERT: Massachusetts Gives Businesses Until May 1, 2009 to Adopt Comprehensive Information Security Programs To Comply With Recent State Identity Theft Regulations

In September, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR) issued broad identity theft regulations that require virtually every business that retains information on Massachusetts residents to develop comprehensive policies and procedures to address the risk of identity theft by January 1, 2009. 

On Friday, November 14, 2008, OCABR announced that it will give businesses until May 1, 2009 to comply with the new regulations. This move parallels the October announcement by the Federal Trade Commission that it is delaying enforcement of federal identity theft regulations until the same date, May 1, 2009. 

In conjunction with the recently enacted Massachusetts identity theft statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93H, the Massachusetts identity theft regulations published as 201 CMR 17.00 set specific standards for businesses that own, license, store or maintain personal information about any Massachusetts residents. There are several key provisions in the new regulations:

  • Businesses subject to the regulations include any company, whether or not based in Massachusetts, that owns, licenses, stores or maintains “personal information” about Massachusetts residents.
  • “Personal information” is defined to include a resident’s name in combination with a Social Security number, driver’s license number, credit card or bank account information.
  • Affected businesses are required to develop, implement, maintain and monitor a comprehensive information security program that would identifying and mitigate the risks of potential identity theft.
  • Businesses are required to set limits on when employees may access, keep and transport records containing personal information outside of company offices and impose disciplinary measures on employees that violate the information security policies.
  • The regulations also specifically require that computer systems containing personal information are protected by encryption, secure user logins, firewall systems, virus and malware protection and reasonably up-to-date system software. 

The Massachusetts Attorney General is authorized to enforce these regulations, but at this stage, as with any new regulatory framework, the form and level of government enforcement is unclear. However, the new regulations direct the Attorney General to take into account the size and nature of the business, as well as the resources available to it, when assessing compliance.

2.13.2009 UPDATE: As we report in our client alert, the OCABR has filed amended regulations to extend the deadline for compliance with Massachusetts identity theft regulation to January 1, 2010.

ALERT: FTC Gives Businesses Until May 1, 2009 to Adopt Identity Theft Prevention Plans that Comply With Recent FTC "Red Flags" Regulations

On Wednesday, October 22, 2008, the Federal Trade Commission issued an Enforcement Policy Statement that it will delay some elements of enforcement of recent “Red Flags” regulations until May 1, 2009, instead of the original November 1, 2008 date. Citing uncertainty and confusion within many industries over whether they are covered by the new regulations, the FTC indicated that it will not seek to enforce the regulations on November 1, 2008, when all affected businesses were originally required to come into compliance.  This delay does not apply to users of consumer reports handling notices of address discrepancies, which still has a November 1, 2008, deadline. Likewise, enforcement against banks, credit unions and other financial institutions by the U.S. Treasury, Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and other agencies is not affected by the FTC’s action.

The “Red Flag” rules had their genesis in 2003, when Congress enacted the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 (“FACTA”). FACTA required the FTC and a group of other regulatory agencies and committees to adopt regulations to help consumers avoid the growing epidemic of identity theft. Under the final “Red Flags” regulations that came into effect on January 1, 2008, U.S. companies that maintain customer accounts used to make periodic payments, transfers or transactions were initially given until November 1, 2008 to develop formal policies to detect the warning signs or “Red Flags” of potential identity theft and set up procedures to prevent and mitigate the harm caused by identity theft. The FTC’s latest announcement provides businesses with an additional seven months, until May 1, 2009, to assess whether they are covered by the “Red Flags” regulations and put in place a compliant Identity Theft Prevention Plan.

While the language of the regulations covers “financial institutions” and “creditors” maintaining “covered accounts,” the FTC has made clear that the “Red Flag” regulations are intended to cover a broad range of businesses, many of which may not consider themselves traditional “financial institutions”. In particular, the FTC maintains that the new regulations apply to: (1) businesses that maintain any type of account that permits multiple payments or transactions or any other account that presents a reasonably foreseeable risk of identity theft, (2) credit card issuers, and (3) companies that use or receive consumer credit reports. 

The FTC estimates that the new regulations apply to over 11 million businesses in the U.S., including lenders, mortgage brokers, and brokerage firms, but also automobile dealers, utilities and telecommunications companies, collection agencies and other businesses that participates in credit decisions about their customers. Any business that provides customers with any type of account that permits the customer to make repeated payments or enter into regular financial transactions needs to assess whether they are subject to the new “Red Flags” regulations.

If your business is covered by the new “Red Flag” regulations, you will need to develop an Identity Theft Prevention Plan containing procedures to:

  1. Identify any indicators of a possible risk or existence of identity theft in their business — what federal regulators are calling “Red Flags” — such as discrepancies in customer information and suspicious account activity.
  2. Respond appropriately to any Red Flags in order to prevent identity theft from occurring, including by monitoring suspicious activity, contacting customers and notifying law enforcement.
  3. Continually assess the identity theft risks to customers and update the company’s Identity Theft Prevention Plan as necessary.

In addition, the new Red Flag regulations require an affected business to obtain approval from its board of directors for the Identity Theft Prevention Plan, train staff to administer the program and exercise oversight over any service providers retained to manage customer accounts and information. 

At present, it is still unclear what form the FTC’s enforcement of the “Red Flags” regulations will take. The regulations do provide for enforcement actions, regulatory penalties and fines, but do not provide individuals with a right to sue for failure to comply with the new rules.