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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now you tell me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How lame
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How lame
[nods to DNA]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respond
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]