SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday July 05 2018, @07:13PM (2 children)
Nice troll, but you fail to recognize the difference between the risk of future harm, and some imaginary hurt feelings.
Free speech does not extend so far as to allow you two shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
But it does not absolve the management from turning up the house lights and announcing that a real fire exists.
Nor does any part of the law require you to applaud at end of the film.
You need not express approval of something you disapprove of.
Maybe you were going for funny. I'm not amused. Sue me.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday July 05 2018, @07:29PM
A common misconception. It's never been decided, and the status of shouting "fire" in a theatre is not clear.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Thursday July 05 2018, @07:34PM
Thanks!
Don't give lawmakers any ideas.
Just wait until
Trump'sThe Dear Leader's 3rd or 4th term.More to the point:
When Corporations have imaginary hurt feelings, that IS a future harm. Even if it is not so for the rest of us mere humans. Corporations don't like having to say they did something wrong -- even if they did and it harmed millions of people. You can be sure that the corporations (and their shills) will not like the government compelling them to disclose major breaches of security.
IMO, one reason why they SHOULD be required to disclose breaches, beyond simply notifying everyone after the fact, is that it serves as an incentive to PREVENT breaches in the first place. I happen to think they should also be civilly liable for all ensuing damages. But that won't happen because then they would REALLY have to think about security and take it seriously. Getting their security modded Funny wouldn't cut it.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.