Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the first-post^W-amendment dept.

Submitted via IRC for BoyceMagooglyMonkey

Your company has suffered a data breach. The law requires you to fall on your sword, and—at considerable time and expense—provide a government-scripted breach disclosure notice to your customers, including the facts and circumstances surrounding the breach, how it happened, what data was breached and, more importantly, what you are doing about it.

Irrespective of the costs of the breach itself, the government-compelled disclosure may cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars in disclosure costs alone, not to mention the reputational and other costs associated with this compelled speech. To make matters worse, the government-ordered speech does little in and of itself to make consumers safer or better protected against hackers.

[...] The data breach disclosure laws are clearly government-compelled speech. The government has a good reason for wanting companies to make such disclosures, but such reasons may not be "compelling" and the disclosure may not be the least intrusive means of achieving the government's objectives. Under the EU's GDPR regulations, the disclosure is made to the government privacy entity, and only where that entity believes it necessary is a public disclosure made.

In essence, the Supreme Court has found a right of commercial entities not to be required to make notifications and disclosures because they have a first amendment right not to be forced to do so.

Source: https://securityboulevard.com/2018/07/are-breach-disclosure-laws-unconstitutional-in-the-wake-of-supreme-court-abortion-case/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:53PM (7 children)

    by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:53PM (#703030) Journal

    So no more labeling the contents of products? No more health or safety warnings? Give me a break, companies are compelled to disclose a hell of a lot of things by law. Or is it another case of ‘but with a computer’?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:58PM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:58PM (#703035) Journal

    I think it's less of "with a computer" than it is Trump being in love with success and big money. He promised to make it easier for Big Business to rape people, didn't he? The Supremes are aware of that, at the least, and may even be influenced by Trump's attitude. Maybe more influenced by the fact that Trump will soon appoint another lifelong justice to their ranks.

    I today's America, big business can do almost no wrong. Just about anything short of actual human sacrifice on an altar of gold is alright.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:29PM (2 children)

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:29PM (#703051) Journal

      big business can do almost no wrong

      You could have omitted the word almost.

      A long time ago, in the early 2000s, I (briefly) had a coworker who was extremely against open source or anything to with open source, or creative commons, etc. Also he idolized Microsoft and IBM.

      The first time I was telling him about Linux, his questions centered around money: "How do they make their money?"

      The first time he actually "got" my explanation of open source, work being donated, and anyone could download the result; his immediate reaction was (and I quote): "They can't be allowed to do that!" I think his emotional reaction was because he recognized it as a threat to Microsoft's sacred business model. Develop code once, then sell cheaply made copies for obscenely more than recouping the development cost plus a handsome profit.

      In our 'debating' there was a point where it became clear to me that he really seemed to believe that a corporation could actually do no wrong at all if what they did was profitable.

      My point: there really are people who think like that. Yes, really. The live and walk this earth.

      I wonder what he would think of Open Source in general, and Linux in particular today?

      --
      Everyone knows that alien abductions (and probing) happen only at night, because that is when the aliens are hungry.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:16PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @06:16PM (#703130)

        We have at least 2 of them here, VLM (as he just made clear) and Khallow. Maybe Jmorris fits in there but he is too nutty to tell.

        • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:15PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Thursday July 05 2018, @09:15PM (#703249)

          I think I have the required number of demonstrations of faith to pass. I published a minor Linux distribution for a couple of years. I was there in the auditorium when Linus proclaimed His Godhood. I have heard St. iGNUcius speak. I even received a brief email (with code!) from Larry Wall back in the CueCat [beau.org] skirmish. So yeah, I believe in both Free Software AND the Open Source marketing perfected by ESR.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:28PM (#703050)

    So no more labeling the contents of products? No more health or safety warnings?

    That's very clearly the goal. Or haven't you been paying attention to what every department of government in the executive branch has been doing since the 2016 electoral debacle?

  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:54PM (1 child)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:54PM (#703075)

    For that matter, no more shareholder disclosures. And no more insider trading laws: After all, if the government cannot compel speech from a corporation, surely they cannot constrain speech from a corporation, and telling 50 buddies of upper management when to sell and buy the corporation's stock wouldn't be a problem, right?

    Gilded Age, here we come!

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.