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This discussion has been archived.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 DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:56PM (2 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 05 2018, @03:56PM (#703034) Journal

    Truth in advertising should require that if they won't bake a cake for gay people that they should be allowed to publicly and loudly declare in the media that they serve Everyone!

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:24PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:24PM (#703048)

    Proofread

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:34PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 05 2018, @04:34PM (#703057) Journal

      I think it says exactly what I meant.

      At present, it would seem that truth in advertising would not let you say you serve everyone, if, in fact, you do not.

      Yet the famous cake bakers did not serve everyone, but after being upheld by SCOTUS, said to the press that they served everyone.

      Of course, a statement to the press is not an advertisement.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.