Citing Recession, Massachusetts Bumps To 2010 Its Tough New Data Security Rules

Written by Fred J. Aun
February 19th, 2009

Revenue-strapped retailers dreading a May 2009 deadline for compliance with Massachusetts’ stringent new data security regulations received a recession-induced breather on February 12, when the deadline was bumped one year to Jan. 1, 2010.

It was the second regulation imposition delay by the state Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR) in three months. The tough new rules, announced in September 2008, were originally scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2009.

In a rare piece of welcome business news related to the economy, OCABR Undersecretary Daniel Crane said the seven-month-long extension is being granted because the state understands that “the impact of the current business environment” might make compliance by May difficult.

Additionally, reacting to many complaints from affected companies (that would be any firms doing business with Massachusetts residents), the OCABR erased from the regulations a mandate that companies obtain proof from their third-party providers that they are in compliance with the new rules. The softened language says companies must take “reasonable steps to verify that any third-party service provider with access to personal information has the capacity to protect such personal information in the manner provided for” in the new law.

The OCABR might be taking a kinder, gentler approach, but the new rules are still likely to be a headache for many retailers.

For starters, they will require any company “that owns, licenses, stores or maintains personal information” about Massachusetts residents to “develop, implement, maintain and monitor a comprehensive, written information security program applicable to any records containing such personal information.” They must also name one or more employees to maintain the information security programs, and these overseers will be required to identify and assess “reasonably foreseeable internal and external risks” to data security.

Companies will be allowed to collect only enough personal information “reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose for which it is collected,” and they will not be allowed to keep the data after it has been used to accomplish that purpose.

Contained in the list of requirements for IT systems, including wireless networks, are these provisions:

  • Companies must use secure user authentication protocols, including control of user IDs and other identifiers; a reasonably secure method of assigning and selecting passwords; or unique identifier technologies such as biometrics or token devices.
  • Companies must control data security passwords to ensure they are kept in a location and/or format that does not compromise the security of the data they protect.

    “To the extent technically feasible,” encryption must be applied to all transmitted records and files that contain personal information and travel across public networks, including wireless networks, or are stored on mobile devices.

  • advertisement

    Comments are closed.


    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!

    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...

    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.