FCC Proposes Stricter Requirements for Reporting Data Breaches (engadget.com) 13
The Federal Communications Commission is the next US regulator hoping to hold companies more accountable for data breaches. From a report: Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has shared a rulemaking proposal that would introduce stricter requirements for data breach reporting. Most notably, the new rules would require notifications for customers affected by "inadvertent" breaches -- companies that leave data exposed would have to be just as communicative as victims of cyberattacks. The requirements would also scrap a mandatory one-week waiting period for notifying customers. Carriers, meanwhile, would have to disclose reportable breaches to the FCC in addition to the FBI and Secret Service. Rosenworcel argued the tougher rules were necessary to account for the "evolving nature" of breaches and the risks they posed to victims. People ought to be protected against larger and more frequent incidents, the FCC chair said -- that is, regulations need to catch up with reality.
FCC has no authority to do this (Score:4, Insightful)
The FCC has no authority to mandate reporting for data breaches. Their job is to regulate the airwaves.
WTF, are all these agencies looking for more work? Does the FCC not have enough to do?
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has no authority to mandate reporting for data breaches. Their job is to regulate the airwaves.
WTF, are all these agencies looking for more work? Does the FCC not have enough to do?
They can't require people who are not providing telecommunications services to disclose anything however they do seem to have some authority over carriers and arguably ISPs.
"Rulemaking" should be left up to (substantially corrupt) congress to pass laws instead of allowing (substantially corrupt) technocrats to play king.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus Congress doesn't have time to make rules in as much detail as the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't want a bunch of (mostly) idiots that are (mostly) paid for by corporate lobbyists (hence just puppets) and know nothing about tech making rules - the personnel at the FCC is clearly better suited to making the rules.
Corruption is ubiquitous. At least with lawmakers there are many of them that have to be sufficiently bought off to override competing risk of pissing off their constituents. TLA Rulemaking processes are often driven from the top down (Including POTUS who is not supposed to be making laws) by far fewer with power over the agency.
Technical expertise and legal aspects are not relevant because both technocrats and congress have access to domain experts to assist with legal and technical implementation detail
Re: (Score:3)
"Rulemaking" should be left up to (substantially corrupt) congress to pass laws instead of allowing (substantially corrupt) technocrats to play king.
Rulemaking is created by laws though. They pass a law granting rulemaking capability to an agency, or straight up ordering them to make a rule in some cases. The idea is that the agency has the experts to understand the nitty-gritty details of the things they oversee and write the technically details rules under that authority. It also allows flexibility to change rules when needed without a literal act of congress. There are just too many agencies with authority over too many things for congress to deal w
Re: (Score:2)
Rulemaking is created by laws though. They pass a law granting rulemaking capability to an agency, or straight up ordering them to make a rule in some cases.
I don't think delegation of lawmaking to technocrats is a good idea. They don't answer to the people and the more you abstract the process the more lawmakers can weasel out of accountability.
The idea is that the agency has the experts to understand the nitty-gritty details of the things they oversee and write the technically details rules under that authority.
Whether you head the FCC or are a lawmaker you are able to call upon relevant domain experts to assist with technical and legal details of a policy implementation.
It also allows flexibility to change rules when needed without a literal act of congress.
Having barriers of an act of congress is a supremely good thing.
There are just too many agencies with authority over too many things for congress to deal with handling everything in a timely manor.
So they can hire more staff at an infinitesimal cost to the tax payer. If it isn't important
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The way it is working is not how it's supposed to work according to the Constitution. The problem is that Congress has illegibly delegated legislative decision making to executive agencies. The agencies call their decision rules and policies and regulations, but they all have the force of law. The Constitution says that lawmaking resides with the legislature.
The courts should slap down this game and the President ought to force his agencies to not make regulations but instead agencies should put together a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You should probably help update their Wikipedia, then. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission)
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent agency of the United States federal government that regulates communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable across the United States. The FCC maintains jurisdiction over the areas of broadband access, fair competition, radio frequency use, media responsibility, public safety, and homeland security.
The FCC was formed by the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the Federal Radio Commission. The FCC took over wire communication regulation from the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be describing the internet that does not use electronic communications across state lines or international boundaries. Is that the internet based on IP over Avian Carriers [wikipedia.org]?
By the way, how did you post on Slashdot without using interstate broadband? Please let us in on your secret.
jail the execs (Score:2)
Until the senior execs face some real pain. they are never going to budget time/money for proper security. Spending that would cut into their personal income from profits/bonuses.
There needs to be a law that would make a breach, inadvertent or otherwise, sufficient evidence of a federal felony with mandatory jail time. This would prevent having insurance, or a board decision, cover the cost of a fine.