Evan Schuman's StorefrontBacktalk

The prior version said one of the purposes of the regulation was to “protect against unauthorized access to or use of such information in a manner that creates substantial risk of identity theft or fraud against such residents.” The simplified revised sentence says the purpose is to “protect against unauthorized access to or use of such information that may result in substantial harm or inconvenience to any consumer.”

The original regulation’s definition of “encrypted” spoke of the transformation of data “through the use of an algorithmic process, or an alternative method at least as secure into a form in which meaning cannot be assigned without the use of a confidential process or key unless further defined by regulation of the Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation.” The revised definition removes the words “through the use of an algorithmic process, or an alternative method at least as secure” and also deletes the “unless further defined by” section. That means, to Massachusetts, data encryption simply is “the transformation of data into a form in which meaning cannot be assigned without the use of a confidential process or key.”

In detailing the duty to protect and the standards for protecting personal information, the revised regulation says, “every person that owns or licenses personal information” about a Massachusetts resident “shall develop, implement and maintain a comprehensive information security program that is written in one or more readily accessible parts and contains administrative, technical and physical safeguards that are appropriate to the (a) size, the scope and type of business of the person obligated to safeguard the personal information under such comprehensive information security program; (b) the amount of resources available to such person; (c) the amount of stored data; and (d) the need for security and confidentiality of both consumer and employee information.

Before being revised, that section said the business needed to “monitor” the information security program as well as develop, implement and maintain it. It made no mention of the program being appropriate to the company’s size, type, resources, stored data and security needs. Instead, the original statement said the “comprehensive security program shall be reasonably consistent with industry standards, and shall contain administrative, technical and physical safeguards to ensure the security and confidentiality of such records.”

In a statement, the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation said the regulations “make clear that (the state’s new) approach to data security is a risk-based approach that is especially important to small businesses that may not handle a lot of personal information about customers. Under a risk-based approach, a business, in developing a written security program, should take into account its size, nature of its business, the kinds of records it maintains, and the risk of identity theft posed by its operations.”

The state further explains its motivation for the proposed changes by noting it now “recognizes that the size of a business and the amount of personal information it handles plays a role in the data security plan the business creates.” Anthony noted the new regulations are “technology neutral and acknowledge that technical feasibility plays a role in what many businesses, especially small businesses can do to protect data.” She contended the approach is more consistent with federal law. “Whether it’s a small amount of employee paperwork, or a large amount of consumer information kept on an electronic database, each requires its own appropriate level of security and protection,” Anthony said. “The changes we are making reflect that reality without exposing companies or consumers to a heightened risk of theft.”