advertisement
advertisement

As Federal Data Breach Bill Goes To The Full U.S. Senate, NRF Warns Of “Notice Fatigue.” Not To Worry: This Bill’s Many Loopholes Won’t Require Retail Chains To Do Much Anyway

Written by Evan Schuman
September 27th, 2011

On September 22, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee pushed a data security bill—which has been bouncing around that chamber for six years—to the full Senate. The bill would create federal data security rules, including new retail data breach disclosure rules. But the bill (Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2011 introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy, Dem.-VT) still suffers from many of the lengthy exceptions that it has had for years, exceptions that all but guarantee that few retailers will be required to do anything differently.

But in light of this bill’s lengthy exemptions and data breach size limits—public disclosure, for example, is only required when a breach impacts more than 5,000 people in one state—the National Retail Federation issued a statement saying it fears that with so many retailers having to report data breaches under this legislation people might get bored and start to ignore the notices. NRF dubs this scenario “notice fatigue.”

What does it say to the nation when the chief lobbying organization charged with protecting retail interests publicly trumpets the fact that it believes there will be a huge number of data breach reports if full disclosure is required? Yeah, that makes me want to go and buy stock in Wal-Mart and Walgreens right away.

Alas, NRF, fear not. The bill—which has fairly little chance of being made law without being riddled with so many more loopholes as to be meaningless—won’t likely yield many new disclosures from major chains. Let’s drill down into what the current version of the bill actually says.

To begin with, public disclosure is limited to situations where “the number of residents of such state whose sensitive personally identifiable information was, or is reasonably believed to have been, accessed or acquired by an unauthorized person exceeds 5,000.” First, it’s mathematically unlikely that we’ll be seeing thousands of such reports. Second, if we are, sorry, but those chains need to disclose. And if we do indeed have thousands of such retail breach disclosures every year, we have a much bigger problem than consumers getting bored with such notices. Some of them might even get a little angry. (Not that American consumers will do anything about it. We’re such an apathetic, lazy lot.)

The bill also allows for individual consumer notifications in breaches with fewer than 5,000 victims, and it doesn’t set a limit on those notifications. With them, though, the time restrictions are impressively soft.

The bill allows for delays for any “time necessary to determine the scope of the security breach, prevent further disclosures, conduct the risk assessment and restore the reasonable integrity of the system,” among other things.


advertisement

Comments are closed.

Newsletters

StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!
advertisement

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

StorefrontBacktalk
Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.