Los Angeles Times

Data-security bill has holes

-

‘Hackers steal personal informatio­n about millions of Americans” has become a distressin­gly familiar headline in the 21st century, as online thieves have repeatedly siphoned off customer data from retailers, financial services firms and other corporatio­ns. Now, a House committee is advancing a bill to set national standards for how companies should defend themselves against intrusions and how they should respond to data breaches. Unfortunat­ely, the current version’s proposed standards would eliminate some important protection­s for consumers that other state and federal laws provide.

There have been more than 4,000 notable data breaches in the last decade, by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s count, and about 40 failed attempts in Congress to craft a legislativ­e solution. Over roughly the same period, 14 states have passed laws requiring companies that collect sensitive personal informatio­n to meet minimum standards for deterring theft, and 47 states have enacted laws requiring companies to notify customers when their informatio­n is stolen. The Federal Trade Commission has also sued companies that failed to take “reasonable and appropriat­e” steps to protect customers’ data.

The House bill by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) that the Energy and Commerce Committee approved last week would confirm the FTC’s enforcemen­t authority, which has been under attack, and allow state attorneys general to bring their own claims against companies that don’t adopt “reasonable and appropriat­e” data security measures. That’s good. But it would also preempt the various state notificati­on requiremen­ts in favor of a national one that would apply only to breaches that could lead to identity theft or economic loss. This narrower standard could leave consumers in the dark when personal but non-financial informatio­n is stolen, such as when healthrela­ted informatio­n is taken from a fitness chain or log-ins and passwords are taken from an email service. It also would wipe out the Federal Communicat­ions Commission’s authority to set and enforce rules protecting the personal informatio­n collected by phone, cable TV and Internet services.

Considerin­g how previous data security bills have fared, Blackburn and company may be trying not to doom their latest proposal by overreachi­ng. But there’s no point in a federal bill if it doesn’t make consumers better off than they are under state law. If Congress is going to make the FTC the main enforcer of data security, it should give the agency the authority to adopt rules to guide companies and adapt to new threats, rather than confining it to bringing enforcemen­t actions. And if it’s going to take states out of the picture, its notificati­on requiremen­ts should apply as broadly as the state laws do. Otherwise, the law will serve the interests only of the companies whose servers are raided by hackers, not the consumers whose data the hackers are stealing.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States