wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
See
Data
Breaches
in
2005,
https://www.privacyrights.org/data-breaches?
title=&taxonomy_vocabulary_11_tid%5B%5D=271.
10.
In order of passage: Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, Georgia, Washington,
Minnesota, Connecticut, Tennessee, Maine, Illinois, Nevada, Delaware, Rhode Island,
Louisiana, New York, Puerto Rico, New Jersey, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida.
11.
In order of passage: Wisconsin, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Arizona, Vermont,
Hawaii, New Hampshire, Michigan. For more information on data breach notification laws, see
Charlotte A. Tschider, Experimenting with Privacy: Driving Efficiency Through A State-
Informed Federal Data Breach Notification and Data Protection Law, 18 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell.
Prop. 45 (2015).
12.
Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules
Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 78 Fed. Reg. 5566 (Jan. 25, 2013) (codified at 45
CFR Parts 160 and 164), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-25/pdf/2013-01073.pdf.
13.
See, e.g, Omri Ben-Shahar & Carl E. Schneider, The Failure of Mandated Disclosure, 150 U.
Penn. L. Rev. 647 (2011).
14.
See Ala. Code § 8-38-1 et seq (“BREACH OF SECURITY or BREACH. The unauthorized
acquisition of data in electronic form containing sensitive personally identifying information.
Acquisition occurring over a period of time committed by the same entity constitutes one
breach.”).
15.
See Whitman & Mattord, Principles of Information Security, (2018). (n.62) p.11; International
Standardisation Organisation, ISO/IEC 27002: Code of Practice for Information Security
Management (2005). International Telecommunications Union (ITU). ITU-TX.1205: Series X:
Data Networks, Open System Communications and Security: Telecommunication Security:
Overview of cybersecurity (2008). Available at https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1205-200804.
See also, Alaska Stat. § 45.48.010 et seq (“Unauthorized acquisition, or reasonable belief of
unauthorized acquisition, of personal information that compromises the security,
confidentiality, or integrity of the personal information maintained by the information
collector.”).
16.
General Data Protection Regulation, Article 4(12) (“ ‘personal data breach’ means a breach of
security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised
disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed. . . .”).
17.
Cal. Civ. Code 17982(a).
18.
California Office of Privacy Protection, Reasonable Practices on Notice of Security Breach
Involving Personal Information (Jan. 2012).
19.
Daniel J. Solove & Paul M. Schwartz, Information Privacy Law 949 (6th ed. 2018).
20.
HIPAA Breach Notification Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 164.404.
21.
General Data Protection Regulation, Article 33.
22.
General Data Protection Regulation, Article 4.
23.
General Data Protection Regulation, Article 33.
24.
California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana; New Hampshire, North
Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington currently allow for a private
right of action by consumers who have been affected by a data breach. Cal. Civ. Code §
1798.84 (West 2009); D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3853(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2009); Haw. Rev. Stat. §
487N-1 et seq.; 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 530/1 et seq.; 2018 Louisiana S.B. 361; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 359-C:21(I) (2009); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 75-65 (2007); OR. Rev. State. Ann. § 646A.624
(West Supp. 2009); S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170 (Supp. 2008); Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-2107(h)
(Supp. 2009); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.255.010(10)(9) (West 2007).
25.
Bethan Moorcraft, Are US Consumers Suffering From Data Breach Notification Fatigue?,
Insurance
Business,
(June
19,
2019),
https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/cyber/are-us-consumers-suffering-from-data-
breach-notification-fatigue-170386.aspx; Grayson Schmidt & Ames Tribune, Expert Warns of
the Risks Posed by Data Breach Fatigue, Government Technology, (Jan. 31, 2018),
https://www.govtech.com/security/Expert-Warns-of-the-Risks-Posed-by-Data-Breach-
Fatigue.html.
26.
Deborah George, Proposed New Breach Notification Rule for the Banking Industry, JD Supra,
(Jan. 8, 2021), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/proposed-new-breach-notification-rule-
2286096/.
27.
Roger A. Grimes, Wanted: Data Breach Risk Ratings, Because Not All Breaches are Equal,
CSO, (Sept. 13, 2018), https://www.csoonline.com/article/3304286/data-risk-ratings-because-
not-all-data-breaches-are-equal.html.
28.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Records, Computers, and the Rights of
Citizens: Report of the Secretary’s Advisory Comm. on Automated Personal Data Systems, 41–
42 (1973).
29.
44 U.S.C. § 3541 et seq.
30.
HIPAA Privacy Rule, at 45 CFR § 164.530(c). See generally the HIPAA Security Rule, 45 CFR
§ 164.306 et seq.
31.
§ 164.308(a)(4).
32.

See

Data

Breaches

in

2005,

https://www.privacyrights.org/data-breaches?

title=&taxonomy_vocabulary_11_tid%5B%5D=271.

10.

In order of passage: Arkansas, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, Georgia, Washington,

Minnesota, Connecticut, Tennessee, Maine, Illinois, Nevada, Delaware, Rhode Island,

Louisiana, New York, Puerto Rico, New Jersey, Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida.

11.

In order of passage: Wisconsin, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Arizona, Vermont,

Hawaii, New Hampshire, Michigan. For more information on data breach notification laws, see

Charlotte A. Tschider, Experimenting with Privacy: Driving Efficiency Through A State-

Informed Federal Data Breach Notification and Data Protection Law, 18 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell.

Prop. 45 (2015).

12.

Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification Rules

Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 78 Fed. Reg. 5566 (Jan. 25, 2013) (codified at 45

CFR Parts 160 and 164), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-25/pdf/2013-01073.pdf.

13.

See, e.g, Omri Ben-Shahar & Carl E. Schneider, The Failure of Mandated Disclosure, 150 U.

Penn. L. Rev. 647 (2011).

14.

See Ala. Code § 8-38-1 et seq (“BREACH OF SECURITY or BREACH. The unauthorized

acquisition of data in electronic form containing sensitive personally identifying information.

Acquisition occurring over a period of time committed by the same entity constitutes one

breach.”).

15.

See Whitman & Mattord, Principles of Information Security, (2018). (n.62) p.11; International

Standardisation Organisation, ISO/IEC 27002: Code of Practice for Information Security

Management (2005). International Telecommunications Union (ITU). ITU-TX.1205: Series X:

Data Networks, Open System Communications and Security: Telecommunication Security:

Overview of cybersecurity (2008). Available at https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-X.1205-200804.

See also, Alaska Stat. § 45.48.010 et seq (“Unauthorized acquisition, or reasonable belief of

unauthorized acquisition, of personal information that compromises the security,

confidentiality, or integrity of the personal information maintained by the information

collector.”).

16.

General Data Protection Regulation, Article 4(12) (“ ‘personal data breach’ means a breach of

security leading to the accidental or unlawful destruction, loss, alteration, unauthorised

disclosure of, or access to, personal data transmitted, stored or otherwise processed. . . .”).

17.

Cal. Civ. Code 17982(a).

18.

California Office of Privacy Protection, Reasonable Practices on Notice of Security Breach

Involving Personal Information (Jan. 2012).

19.

Daniel J. Solove & Paul M. Schwartz, Information Privacy Law 949 (6th ed. 2018).

20.

HIPAA Breach Notification Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 164.404.

21.

General Data Protection Regulation, Article 33.

22.

General Data Protection Regulation, Article 4.

23.

General Data Protection Regulation, Article 33.

24.

California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana; New Hampshire, North

Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington currently allow for a private

right of action by consumers who have been affected by a data breach. Cal. Civ. Code §

1798.84 (West 2009); D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3853(a) (LexisNexis Supp. 2009); Haw. Rev. Stat. §

487N-1 et seq.; 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 530/1 et seq.; 2018 Louisiana S.B. 361; N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.

§ 359-C:21(I) (2009); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 75-65 (2007); OR. Rev. State. Ann. § 646A.624

(West Supp. 2009); S.C. Code Ann. § 37-20-170 (Supp. 2008); Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-2107(h)

(Supp. 2009); Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 19.255.010(10)(9) (West 2007).

25.

Bethan Moorcraft, Are US Consumers Suffering From Data Breach Notification Fatigue?,

Insurance

Business,

(June

19,

2019),

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/cyber/are-us-consumers-suffering-from-data-

breach-notification-fatigue-170386.aspx; Grayson Schmidt & Ames Tribune, Expert Warns of

the Risks Posed by Data Breach Fatigue, Government Technology, (Jan. 31, 2018),

https://www.govtech.com/security/Expert-Warns-of-the-Risks-Posed-by-Data-Breach-

Fatigue.html.

26.

Deborah George, Proposed New Breach Notification Rule for the Banking Industry, JD Supra,

(Jan. 8, 2021), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/proposed-new-breach-notification-rule-

2286096/.

27.

Roger A. Grimes, Wanted: Data Breach Risk Ratings, Because Not All Breaches are Equal,

CSO, (Sept. 13, 2018), https://www.csoonline.com/article/3304286/data-risk-ratings-because-

not-all-data-breaches-are-equal.html.

28.

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Records, Computers, and the Rights of

Citizens: Report of the Secretary’s Advisory Comm. on Automated Personal Data Systems, 41–

42 (1973).

29.

44 U.S.C. § 3541 et seq.

30.

HIPAA Privacy Rule, at 45 CFR § 164.530(c). See generally the HIPAA Security Rule, 45 CFR

§ 164.306 et seq.

31.

§ 164.308(a)(4).

32.