wildercb/PrivacyTextBooks1.2 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 118
theirs. Identity thieves also steal people’s identities to obtain medical care,
and this has resulted in people losing their health insurance. There are cases
where the police have arrested victims because their police records were
tainted by the identity thieves.
Ransomware attacks are rising dramatically. Ransomware works by
encrypting files on people’s computers so that the files are unreadable and
inaccessible. The data is held hostage. To get the data back, victims must
pay the hackers a ransom. Ransomware is incredibly profitable for hackers.
It is a frightening world where at any moment, all our computer files—our
documents, our precious photos and videos, our music, our most important
information—can be held hostage for a ransom. In 2018, the city of Atlanta,
Georgia, spent $2.6 million to recover from a ransomware attack on the
city’s systems that asked for the rough equivalent of about $50,000 worth of
the electronic currency Bitcoin.20
Malicious hackers can readily frame people when data is compromised.
They can put incriminating files onto people’s computers and then tip off
law enforcement authorities.21 Hackers can also access your most private
photos and writings and publish them to the world.22 They can take over
your computer and use it to spam other people or to serve as a conduit
through which to commit crimes.
As more devices, appliances, and vehicles are hooked up to the Internet,
physical safety is at grave risk.23 Hackers can break into our home devices.
They can peer at our children through our baby cameras. They can snoop
around through our home security cameras. They can listen in on us through
our home assistant devices. They can gain control of our cars. They can also
hack into implantable devices in our bodies, such as pacemakers or insulin
pumps.
As more and more of our sensitive data is maintained in vast dossiers
about us, as our biometric information is gathered and stored—such as our
fingerprints, eye scans, facial data, and DNA—what will the future look
like if organizations can’t keep it secure?
In Minority Report, a 2002 movie based upon a short story by Philip K.
Dick, the protagonist John Anderton is on the run, being pursued
exhaustively by the authorities. The movie is set in the future—2054—
where the government and businesses use extensive surveillance
technologies. To evade capture via ever-present retinal scanners, John must
undergo an operation to replace both of his eyes. The procedure is rather
gruesome, but it is necessary given the pervasive use of biometric
identification in the story.
Imagine the data breach notification letters of the future:
We regret to inform you that we have suffered a breach, and hackers have obtained your retinal
data, which they could use to impersonate you and gain access to accounts. To guard against
future harm, we recommend that you immediately schedule an operation to replace your eyes.
We are hurtling forward into a perilous future, with organizations collecting
more data and with the consequences of its misuse becoming more dire—
and even deadly.
DATA SECURITY LAW’S GRAND ENTRANCE
During the past two decades, policymakers have rushed out a body of law
to address the worsening data security nightmare. The most significant
development is the rise of data breach notification laws, which require
organizations that are breached to notify regulators, affected individuals,
and sometimes the media. Breach notification is immensely popular; every
state in America, as well as many countries, now have these laws.
Unfortunately, breach notification merely alerts victims that their data was
compromised in a breach. It doesn’t cure the harm; it just informs people of
the danger.
Then come the class action lawsuits. Sometimes mere hours after a
breach is made public, attorneys file lawsuits against companies on behalf
of those whose data was compromised. Many of the suits fail. Others end
up settling, with companies paying to save on the cost of litigating the case.
Consumers often don’t receive any significant benefits or compensation.
In the Target case, the consumer lawsuits for the breach settled for a
pittance—just $10 million. The settlement was a fee paid not on the merits
of the case but to make it go away. The Target breach affected between 70
and 110 million individuals, which means that the recovery amounted to
just a few pennies per person.24 Victims did not see significant restitution as
the settlement only applied to the reimbursement of notoriously elusive
“documented damages” and reimbursements for “lost time,” which is often
not given much value.
After breaches, regulators also step in to enforce, but many times
regulators take a pass. There are too many breaches each year, and
regulators only have the resources to go after a small fraction of them.
When regulators step in, their penalties often just increase the cost of the
breach to a small or modest degree. For example, a group of state regulators
settled with Target for $18.5 million.25 With the Target breach costs at an
estimated $291 million, this regulatory penalty represents less than 10
percent of the total. Even if regulators or individual litigants were to recover
more in penalties and damages, it’s not clear that things would be any
different. Of course, greater monetary pain after a data breach might
provide a stronger incentive to keep data secure, but organizations already
face significant costs for breaches, and the additional incentive is not likely
going to be a game changer. Target was already taking security quite
seriously and devoting significant resources to it. Target failed not because
of a lack of commitment to data security but because it made mistakes.
Breaches set in motion a series of legal responses that often drag on for
years and mire organizations in millions of dollars in expenses. By this
time, however, it is far too late. The damage has been done, and the law
mostly serves to heighten the expense to companies. While it is important to
make sure that organizations internalize the risks they create, the law isn’t
addressing all other actors that create risk. To make matters worse, the law
often fails to help individual victims whose data was compromised in the
breach.
Despite data security law’s obsession with data breaches, the law doesn’t
seem to be reducing the size, severity, or number of breaches. Data breaches
are steadily increasing.26 The news is inundated with stories about data
breaches that were readily preventable through rather inexpensive, non-
cumbersome means. Why aren’t data breaches slowing down? Why doesn’t
the law seem to be making any difference?
THE ARGUMENT OF THIS BOOK AND A ROADMAP
This is a book about how to improve the law’s approach to data security.

theirs. Identity thieves also steal people’s identities to obtain medical care,

and this has resulted in people losing their health insurance. There are cases

where the police have arrested victims because their police records were

tainted by the identity thieves.

Ransomware attacks are rising dramatically. Ransomware works by

encrypting files on people’s computers so that the files are unreadable and

inaccessible. The data is held hostage. To get the data back, victims must

pay the hackers a ransom. Ransomware is incredibly profitable for hackers.

It is a frightening world where at any moment, all our computer files—our

documents, our precious photos and videos, our music, our most important

information—can be held hostage for a ransom. In 2018, the city of Atlanta,

Georgia, spent $2.6 million to recover from a ransomware attack on the

city’s systems that asked for the rough equivalent of about $50,000 worth of

the electronic currency Bitcoin.20

Malicious hackers can readily frame people when data is compromised.

They can put incriminating files onto people’s computers and then tip off

law enforcement authorities.21 Hackers can also access your most private

photos and writings and publish them to the world.22 They can take over

your computer and use it to spam other people or to serve as a conduit

through which to commit crimes.

As more devices, appliances, and vehicles are hooked up to the Internet,

physical safety is at grave risk.23 Hackers can break into our home devices.

They can peer at our children through our baby cameras. They can snoop

around through our home security cameras. They can listen in on us through

our home assistant devices. They can gain control of our cars. They can also

hack into implantable devices in our bodies, such as pacemakers or insulin

pumps.

As more and more of our sensitive data is maintained in vast dossiers

about us, as our biometric information is gathered and stored—such as our

fingerprints, eye scans, facial data, and DNA—what will the future look

like if organizations can’t keep it secure?

In Minority Report, a 2002 movie based upon a short story by Philip K.

Dick, the protagonist John Anderton is on the run, being pursued

exhaustively by the authorities. The movie is set in the future—2054—

where the government and businesses use extensive surveillance

technologies. To evade capture via ever-present retinal scanners, John must

undergo an operation to replace both of his eyes. The procedure is rather

gruesome, but it is necessary given the pervasive use of biometric

identification in the story.

Imagine the data breach notification letters of the future:

We regret to inform you that we have suffered a breach, and hackers have obtained your retinal

data, which they could use to impersonate you and gain access to accounts. To guard against

future harm, we recommend that you immediately schedule an operation to replace your eyes.

We are hurtling forward into a perilous future, with organizations collecting

more data and with the consequences of its misuse becoming more dire—

and even deadly.

DATA SECURITY LAW’S GRAND ENTRANCE

During the past two decades, policymakers have rushed out a body of law

to address the worsening data security nightmare. The most significant

development is the rise of data breach notification laws, which require

organizations that are breached to notify regulators, affected individuals,

and sometimes the media. Breach notification is immensely popular; every

state in America, as well as many countries, now have these laws.

Unfortunately, breach notification merely alerts victims that their data was

compromised in a breach. It doesn’t cure the harm; it just informs people of

the danger.

Then come the class action lawsuits. Sometimes mere hours after a

breach is made public, attorneys file lawsuits against companies on behalf

of those whose data was compromised. Many of the suits fail. Others end

up settling, with companies paying to save on the cost of litigating the case.

Consumers often don’t receive any significant benefits or compensation.

In the Target case, the consumer lawsuits for the breach settled for a

pittance—just $10 million. The settlement was a fee paid not on the merits

of the case but to make it go away. The Target breach affected between 70

and 110 million individuals, which means that the recovery amounted to

just a few pennies per person.24 Victims did not see significant restitution as

the settlement only applied to the reimbursement of notoriously elusive

“documented damages” and reimbursements for “lost time,” which is often

not given much value.

After breaches, regulators also step in to enforce, but many times

regulators take a pass. There are too many breaches each year, and

regulators only have the resources to go after a small fraction of them.

When regulators step in, their penalties often just increase the cost of the

breach to a small or modest degree. For example, a group of state regulators

settled with Target for $18.5 million.25 With the Target breach costs at an

estimated $291 million, this regulatory penalty represents less than 10

percent of the total. Even if regulators or individual litigants were to recover

more in penalties and damages, it’s not clear that things would be any

different. Of course, greater monetary pain after a data breach might

provide a stronger incentive to keep data secure, but organizations already

face significant costs for breaches, and the additional incentive is not likely

going to be a game changer. Target was already taking security quite

seriously and devoting significant resources to it. Target failed not because

of a lack of commitment to data security but because it made mistakes.

Breaches set in motion a series of legal responses that often drag on for

years and mire organizations in millions of dollars in expenses. By this

time, however, it is far too late. The damage has been done, and the law

mostly serves to heighten the expense to companies. While it is important to

make sure that organizations internalize the risks they create, the law isn’t

addressing all other actors that create risk. To make matters worse, the law

often fails to help individual victims whose data was compromised in the

breach.

Despite data security law’s obsession with data breaches, the law doesn’t

seem to be reducing the size, severity, or number of breaches. Data breaches

are steadily increasing.26 The news is inundated with stories about data

breaches that were readily preventable through rather inexpensive, non-

cumbersome means. Why aren’t data breaches slowing down? Why doesn’t

the law seem to be making any difference?

THE ARGUMENT OF THIS BOOK AND A ROADMAP

This is a book about how to improve the law’s approach to data security.