encryption

Schwarzenegger vetoes California data breach notification bill SB 20

In case you missed it, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed Senate Bill 20, which would have added a few more requirements to the state’s existing data breach notification law.

Sponsored by state Sen. Joe Simitian, the additions to the landmark data breach law would require holders of personal information to reveal the type of information that was lost and details of the actual breach incident, in addition to notifying data owners of the event.

In his veto letter, Schwarzenegger called the bill “unnecessary … because there is no evidence that there is a problem with the information provided to consumers.”

In an interview with SearchCompliance.com in September, Sen. Simitian said that final negotiations had eliminated any opposition to SB 20, and said the purpose of the bill was to provide consumers with more information. “My argument was, you want to let the state know, so we can get some sense of the scope of the problem,” he said. “And also so consumers have some sense. If I communicate to you that you are one of three files that were compromised, then you are probably a little more anxious and a little more likely to take some steps to protect yourself then if you were one of 500,000.”

In reacting to the veto, Sen. Simitian said, “I’m surprised as well as disappointed by the governor’s veto,” said Simitian in a statement. “This was a common sense step to help consumers. No one likes to get the news that personal information about them has been stolen. But when it happens, people are entitled to get the information they need to decide what to do next. This bill would have made one of California’s key consumer protections even better.”

What happens next is not clear. Simitian said in the interview that if SB 20 was passed he would not foresee any additional changes, arguing that the “light touch” of the existing law was enough to keep data holders responsible and proactive, rather than mandating encryption and other technologies like Massachusetts and Nevada have done.

Bailey on the role of the CIO in innovation, PKI in cloud computing

Last week at the OASIS Identity Management Conference, Gregg “Skip” Bailey, director of technology integration for the federal practice at Deloitte, suggested that agencies looking to leverage the power and scale of cloud computing should use the Identity, Credential and Access Management Subcommittee’s (ICAM) framework.

Bailey says embracing that framework may solve some of the federated public key infrastructure (PKI) management challenges involved in securing personally identifiable information (PII). Bailey said that a useful resource, a cloud standards wiki for proposed and ratified cloud computing standards, is available at the (aptly entitled) Cloud-Standards.org.

Bailey, a former CIO at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, defined the role of a CIO simply in this context to conference attendees: “reduce the cost of commodity technologies and increase innovation in applying those technologies to mission goals.”

“Private clouds are the predominant focus in large enterprises,” said Bailey. “Single-purpose SaaS offerings are most widely adopted.” In his assessment, cloud computing “probably provides the ability to apply to both areas,” with “enterprise flexibility and time to value are significant drivers.”

Clarifying mobile encryption requirements for 201 CMR 17.00 compliance

When I reported on amendments to the Massachusetts data protection law earlier this week, one of the comments that undersecretary of consumer affairs Barbara Anthony made was a point of interest to many enterprise IT professionals who must determine what 201 CMR 17.00 compliance will mean.

Specifically, Anthony stated that, “We know right now that there’s no widespread technology for encrypting mobile devices, but we know it’s there for laptops.”

Given that the regulation’s language includes a requirement for encryption where “technically feasible,” the issue demanded clarification. I contacted Secretariat CIO Gerry Young, who was involved in drafting the original regulation. He offered the following guidance on mobile encryption:

“This just belies unfamiliarity with the current state of encryption. Even a cursory scan will show that technologies like Snapcell, Navastream, AlertBoot, SecurStar PhoneCrypt, Endoacustica and Babylon nG have carried cell phone encryption to fairly sophisticated stages.

“Encryption for cellular phones has evolved beyond even enterprise-class smartphones, and you are beginning to see robust offerings for 3G phones available at attractive price points.

“European companies like Navastream (Germany) are making inroads in U.S. markets to fill a clear void. This will help to drive competition, and push price points lower for the consumer.

“I would think that once there are free, open source encryption alternatives — along with a plethora of low-cost encryption vendors in the cellular market — that we would be ready to mandate cell phone encryption in the near future.”

In other words, encrypting mobile devices and smartphones remains a best practice, particularly where resident PII is present, but is not mandated for 201 CMR 17.00 compliance — yet.

201 CMR 17 FAQ: Updates to Massachusetts data protection law

Earlier today, the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (OCABR) issued an update to 201.CMR.17, the Massachusetts data protection law. The deadline for implementation has now been extended until March 1, 2010.

In an interview with SearchCompliance.com, Undersecretary Barbara Anthony stated that “consumer protections have not been weakened in this amendment. Monitoring, reviewing the scope of security measures – and encryption is still required if you are going to transmit resident PII over public networks. What we’ve tried to do here is to not impose additional burdens which weren’t involved in the consumer protections.”

With the permission of the OCABR, we are posting the FAQ released by the office in full and unedited below. We will post the rest of Anthony’s comments tomorrow, along with further analysis of the changes referenced below.

What are the differences between this version of 201 CMR 17.00 and the version issued in February of 2009?

There are some important differences in the two versions.

First, the most recent regulation issued in August of 2009 makes clear that the rule adopts a risk-based approach to information security, consistent with both the enabling legislation and applicable federal law, especially the FTC’s Safeguards Rule. A risk-based approach is one that directs a business to establish a written security program that takes into account the particular business’ size, scope of business, amount of resources, nature and quantity of data collected or stored, and the need for security. It differs from an approach that mandates every component of a program and requires its adoption regardless of size and the nature of the business and the amount of information that requires security. This clarification of the risk based approach is especially important to those small businesses that do not handle or store large amounts of personal information.

Second, a number of specific provisions required to be included in a business’s written information security program have been removed from the regulation and will be used as a form of guidance only.

Third, the encryption requirement has been tailored to be technology neutral and technical feasibility has been applied to all computer security requirements.

Fourth, the third party vendor requirements have been changed to be consistent with Federal law.

To whom does this regulation apply?
The regulation applies to those engaged in commerce. More specifically, the regulation applies to those who collect and retain personal information in connection with the provision of goods and services or for the purposes of employment.

The regulation does not apply, however, to natural persons who are not in commerce.

Does 201 CMR 17.00 apply to municipalities?
No. 201 CMR 17.01 specifically excludes from the definition of “person” any “agency, executive office, department, board, commission, bureau, division or authority of the Commonwealth, or any of its branches, or any political subdivision thereof.” Consequently, the regulation does not apply to municipalities.

Must my information security program be in writing?
Yes, your information security program must be in writing. The scope and complexity of the document will vary depending on your resources, and the type of personal information you are storing or maintaining. But, everyone who owns or licenses personal information must have a written plan detailing the measures adopted to safeguard such information.

What about the computer security requirements of 201 CMR 17.00?
All of the computer security provisions apply to a business if they are technically feasible. The standard of technical feasibility takes reasonableness into account. (See definition of “technically feasible” below.) The computer security provisions in 17.04 should be construed in accordance with the risk-based approach of the regulation.

Does the regulation require encryption of portable devices?
Yes. The regulation requires encryption of portable devices where it is reasonable and technically feasible. The definition of encryption has been amended to make it technology neutral so that as encryption technology evolves and new standards are developed, this regulation will not impede the adoption of such new technologies.

Do all portable devices have to be encrypted?
No. Only those portable devices that contain personal information of customers or employees and only where technically feasible The “technical feasibility” language of the regulation is intended to recognize that at this period in the development of encryption technology, there is little, if any, generally accepted encryption technology for most portable devices, such as cell phones, blackberries, net books, iphones and similar devices. While it may not be possible to encrypt such portable devices, personal information should not be placed at risk in the use of such devices. There is, however, technology available to encrypt laptops.

Must I encrypt my backup tapes?
You must encrypt backup tapes on a prospective basis. However, if you are going to transport a backup tape from current storage, and it is technically feasible to encrypt (i.e. the tape allows it) then you must do so prior to the transfer. If it is not technically feasible, then you should consider the sensitivity of the information, the amount of personal information and the distance to be traveled and take appropriate steps to secure and safeguard the personal information. For example, if you are transporting a large volume of sensitive personal information, you may want to consider using an armored vehicle with an appropriate number of guards.

What does “technically feasible” mean?
“Technically feasible” means that if there is a reasonable means through technology to accomplish a required result, then that reasonable means must be used.

Must I encrypt my email if it contains personal information?
If it is not technically feasible to do so, then no. However, you should implement best practices by not sending unencrypted personal information in an email. There are alternative methods to communicate personal information other through email, such as establishing a secure website that requires safeguards such as a username and password to conduct transactions involving personal information.

Are there any steps that I am required to take in selecting a third party to store and maintain personal information that I own or license?
You are responsible for the selection and retention of a third-party service provider who is capable of properly safeguarding personal information. The third party service provider provision in 201 CMR 17.00 is modeled after the third party vendor provision in the FTC’s Safeguards Rule.

I have a small business with ten employees. Besides my employee data, I do not store any other personal information. What are my obligations?
The regulation adopts a risk-based approach to information security. A risk-based approach is one that is designed to be flexible while directing businesses to establish a written security program that takes into account the particular business’s size, scope of business, amount of resources and the need for security. For example, if you only have employee data with a small number of employees, you should lock your files in a storage cabinet and lock the door to that room. You should permit access to only those who require it for official duties. Conversely, if you have both employee and customer data containing personal information, then your security approach would be more stringent. If you have a large volume of customer data containing personal information, then your approach would be even more stringent.

Except for swiping credit cards, I do not retain or store any of the personal information of my customers. What is my obligation with respect to 201 CMR 17.00?
If you use swipe technology only, and you do not have actual custody or control over the personal information, then you would not own or license personal information with respect to that data, as long as you batch out such data in accordance with the Payment Card Industry (PCI) standards. However, if you have employees, see the previous question.

Does 201 CMR 17.00 set a maximum period of time in which I can hold onto/retain documents containing personal information?
No. That is a business decision you must make. However, as a good business practice, you should limit the amount of personal information collected to that reasonably necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose for which it is collected and limit the time such information is retained to that reasonably necessary to accomplish such purpose. You should also limit access to those persons who are reasonably required to know such information.

Do I have to do an inventory of all my paper and electronic records?
No, you do not have to inventory your records. However, you should perform a risk assessment and identify which of your records contain personal information so that you can handle and protect that information.

How much employee training do I need to do?
There is no basic standard here. You will need to do enough training to ensure that the employees who will have access to personal information know what their obligations are regarding the protection of that information, as set forth in the regulation.

What is a financial account?
A financial account is an account that if access is gained by an unauthorized person to such account, an increase of financial burden, or a misappropriation of monies, credit or other assets could result. Examples of a financial account are: checking account, savings account, mutual fund account, annuity account, any kind of investment account, credit account or debit account.

Does an insurance policy number qualify as a financial account number?
An insurance policy number qualifies as a financial account number if it grants access to a person’s finances, or results in an increase of financial burden, or a misappropriation of monies, credit or other assets.

I am an attorney. Do communications with clients already covered by the attorney-client privilege immunize me from complying with 201 CMR 17.00?
If you own or license personal information, you must comply with 201 CMR 17.00 regardless of privileged or confidential communications. You must take steps outlined in 201 CMR 17.00 to protect the personal information taking into account your size, scope, resources, and need for security.

I already comply with HIPAA. Must I comply with 201 CMR 17.00 as well?
Yes. If you own or license personal information about a resident of the Commonwealth, you must comply with 201 CMR 17.00, even if you already comply with HIPAA.

What is the extent of my “monitoring” obligation?
The level of monitoring necessary to ensure your information security program is providing protection from unauthorized access to, or use of, personal information, and effectively limiting risks will depend largely on the nature of your business, your business practices, and the amount of personal information you own or license. It will also depend on the form in which the information is kept and stored. Obviously, information stored as a paper record will demand different monitoring techniques from those applicable to electronically stored records. In the end, the monitoring that you put in place must be such that it is reasonably likely to reveal unauthorized access or use.

Is everyone’s level of compliance going to be judged by the same standard?
Both the statute and the regulations specify that security programs should take into account the size and scope of your business, the resources that you have available to you, the amount of data you store, and the need for confidentiality. This will be judged on a case by case basis.

This FAQ was posted with the direct permission of OCABR. For more information on the regulation, visit Mass.gov/consumer.

Government bodies’ dueling legislative answers to data protection laws

When it comes to data security legislation, do you prefer the perspective of the White House, Capitol Hill or Beacon Hill? This is not a trick question.

While the White House refined its philosophy in the Cyberspace Policy Review (CPR) released in May, legislators in Washington had already introduced draft legislation in April embodying different approaches to data security.

The House of Representatives’ version, H.R. 2221, also known as the Data Accountability and Trust Act, appears to be a vehicle with which the executive and legislative branches of government will debate their differing cybersecurity philosophies. How those approaches differ could have a big impact on state laws.

The Cyberspace Policy Review focuses on long-term security policy and strategy rather than immediate solutions. We recently wrote about several significant recommendations from the report, which include:

• A proposal to consider federal issuance of national authentication credentials, similar to a passport.
• Increasing liability for failing to implement level-playing-field security controls.
• A recommendation to align federal and state laws to eliminate confusion and contradiction.

The White House report, overseen by Melissa Hathaway, states that government legislation has been “focused on the particular issue or technology of the day” and that current law and policy is a “complex patchwork,” while recommending an “integrated approach that combines … flexibility … and the protection of civil liberties.”

Proscribing specific technical approaches and technologies such as encryption has already generated controversy in data privacy and security laws, including Massachusetts’ 201 CMR 17.

One aspect that makes Massachusetts regulations in their current form the most onerous or far-reaching in the U.S., depending on your point of view, is mandated 128-bit encryption. However, mandating specific methods and technologies could prove inflexible and, rapidly, obsolete.

The White House report did not take a hard and fast position one way or the other, but its position is revealed in the CPR: “Privacy enhancing technologies such as encryption or controlled access authentication could ameliorate some risks in sharing information.”

Meanwhile, HR 2221 defines encryption as:

“data in storage or in transit using an encryption technology that has been adopted by an established standards setting body which renders such data indecipherable in the absence of associated cryptographic keys necessary to enable decryption of such data. Such encryption must include appropriate management and safeguards of such keys to protect the integrity of the encryption.”

What are your views and concerns about state data protection laws vs. federal legislation or polices from the executive branch? Do you think encryption should be included? If so, what kind? I’d like to hear. Write to editor@searchcompliance.com or reply to @SecuritySources on Twitter.

Cloud computing data security creates challenges for compliance officers

Cloud computing is just another form of outsourcing, and like outsourcing, it comes with its own set of risks and compliance challenges. As the data center begins to disappear into the cloud, data security tops the list.

But is encryption, specifically public key infrastructure, up to the task of protecting data that could reside anywhere? Will standards emerge that will govern the relationship between data owners and cloud service providers?

In this Compliance Advisor podcast, security expert Steven Ross discusses the compliance issues of the “disappearing data center” with SearchCompliance.com Executive Editor Scot Petersen.

 

 Cloud computing compliance [15:12m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

No easy answers for complying with data protection regulations

As the effective date of Jan. 1, 2010, approaches for Massachusetts’ data protection regulation, business owners and information security managers are getting a little bit edgy about compliance with MA 201 CMR 17.

Witness this week’s Compliance Decisions conference. There were two main questions on the minds of the attendees: Enforcement (how strict?) and encryption (what to encrypt and how?). However, no easy answers are available — yet.

The answers that were given by a pair of experts — Gerry Young, secretariat chief information officer for the Massachusetts Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, and David Murray, general counsel of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation — provided a wealth of information about compliance, but in the case of enforcement and encryption, not quite enough information.

It’s not really their fault. While Young and Murray helped craft the data protection regulations, promulgated by Massachusetts General Law 93H in 2007, enforcement will fall to the Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley, and, lawyers being lawyers, Murray could not speculate as to how Coakley will seek to prosecute data breach violations. Will she come down hard on all businesses, or will small businesses be spared? What will she consider to be “reasonable” steps — cited four times in the regulation — to comply?

Coakley’s office has not been available for comment on this topic, and likely no one will know for sure what will happen until the first data breach of 2010 occurs.

That leaves business owners of all sizes with no choice but to comply with the letter of the law (or make their best attempt to). But even what that means is not clear. Young and Murray have been on the road for months, talking up the regulation to business and consumer groups, and have a well-rehearsed presentation with slides. But when asked about what data needs to be encrypted, they said everything — “data at rest” and “data in motion.”

Now, MA 201 CMR 17 is clear about data in motion, mandating “encryption of all personal information stored on laptops or other portable devices” and “encryption of all transmitted records and files containing personal information that will travel across public networks, and … transmitted wirelessly.”

This all makes sense so far. The parties responsible for the infamous TJX data breach in 2007, which gave rise to 93H, exploited the weak WEP encryption protocol for wireless networks, not TJX company servers or databases. Currently, WPA and WPA2 are considered the minimum security standard, but even that has to be implemented correctly, with strong passwords.

As far as data at rest is concerned, there’s no such language, in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations or the Massachusetts General Law, a fact pointed out by a third participant in the conference, consultant Richard Mackey, vice president at SystemExperts. Young then responded: “There is a requirement for encryption of data at rest in 93H that radiates forward [to MA 201 CMR 17].”

After poring through the text of M.G.L. 93H over lunch, Mackey confirmed that data at rest is not an issue, and later in the day, Young and Murray recanted their statement and said encryption of data at rest should be considered a “best practice” only.

Attendees were relieved to hear this. But the concept of a “best practice” opens up even more issues. Encryption of data at rest — in databases, backup tapes, servers, SANs, etc. — is no simple task. Key management, disaster recovery and application performance pose difficult problems for even large companies, let alone small businesses. The best practice of storage encryption may be a worthwhile goal, something to be phased in over time, but shouldn’t be something that gets in the way of the immediate requirements of compliance.

It is not surprising then, that enforcement of MA 201 CMR 17 was delayed from its original May 2009 date to Jan. 1, 2010. Nor that a bill, No. 173, was introduced in the Massachusetts Senate earlier this year seeking to amend the underlying M.G.L. 93H law. Senate Bill 173 would change the law to say that businesses will not be required “to use a specific technology or technologies, or a specific method or methods for protecting personal information.” In addition, it would “create separate regulations for small businesses … that reflect said small businesses unique situation and resources.”

So where are we? No one really knows for sure. What we do know is that Massachusetts employers, and out-of-state businesses that employ Massachusetts residents, must have a compliance plan well under way by January 1.

Cybersecurity is ‘a critical national interest,’ says Hathaway

“It is the fundamental responsibility of our government to secure cyberspace for its citizens and the world.”

– Melissa Hathaway

Melissa Hathaway’s keynote at RSA kicked off with the Mission Impossible theme. The acting director of cyberspace security will need it to summon all of Ethan Hunt’s ingenuity to master the task before her. You can watch the archived livestream of Hathaway’s keynote to the RSA Conference on uStream.com.(Disclaimer: Video is from the side and sound is suboptimal.) Alternately, watch a high-quality version of Hathaway’s keynote from RSA itself.

Notable quotes from Hathaway’s speech:

“The president identified cybersecurity as one of the top priorities for his administration.”

“Our global infrastructure is not secure enough nor resilient enough to support our current and future needs.”

“Humor aside, the U.S. is at a crossroads. Cyberspace underpins almost every part of our nation’s critical infrastructure.”

“The public and private sector interests are intertwined when it comes to cybersecurity.”

As she finished her cybersecurity address, Hathaway cited Edgar Allen Poe, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Wallace Stegner’s Angle of Repose. Those references added an unusually literate tone to this highly technical conference.

Coming: State privacy laws run amok

As business owners are preparing for the new Massachusetts data protection law, also known as 201 CMR 17: Standards for The Protection of Personal Information of Residents of the Commonwealth, due next year, a potential quagmire is building.

Speaking at the TechTarget Compliance Decisions Summit March 12, Laurence Anker, engagement manager, technology risk management for Jefferson Wells International, said the coming influx of state privacy laws will create “a mess.”

Only about half of the states have laws governing personally identifiable information, but several more, including Massachusetts, are crafting tough laws that will put new burdens on businesses, especially SMBs, and businesses outside of the state that employ Massachusetts residents.

These laws will cover areas such as secure storage of data, encryption of data and access controls, as well as require businesses to create written, comprehensive security and privacy policies for personal data.

Such tasks are formidable, but not impossible, but multiply the Massachusetts law by 50 and it’s easy to see how difficult it will become for some businesses to make sure they are in compliance with every state’s privacy law.

Anker said that he does not foresee new state laws as they come on the books to be in direct conflict with one another. Rather, business entities will have to make decisions on how to manage compliance with state privacy laws with different degrees of requirements. Most likely businesses with a widespread employee base will standardize and comply with the state with the toughest privacy policy.

Or, Anker said, there could be a day when state privacy regulators will join an organization similar to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which will seek to normalize the state privacy laws and help the states enforce them.

Risk-based approach to information governance at Compliance Decisions

As I wrote yesterday, the Compliance Decisions Summit got off to a great start when Eric Holmquist and Richard Mackey considered the future of compliance in their talks before a crowded hall of auditors, compliance officers, CIOs and information security professionals.

The second half of the day featured Holmquist again, this time exploring a risk-based approach to information security governance, and Laurence Anker, speaking about managing the cost and complexity of compliance through governance.

We posted the following Twitter on our ITCompliance account over the course of the afternoon. The #CSD09 you see below is a hashtag we chose to track tweets related to today’s seminar. For a full explanation of what a hashtag is and how it works, please consult last week’s digest of compliance headlines from Twitter.

All four seminars from Compliance Decisions will be available soon from SearchSecurity.com and SearchCompliance.com, along with an exclusive interview with Mackey exploring the ramifications of virtualization to compliance management.

A Risk-Based Approach to Information Security Governance

Lunch over, video recorded w/Mackey on #virtualization & #compliance. Next: Holmquist on a risk-based approach to infosec governance. #CSD09

Information security must be approached as a business issue, not an IT issue. Then we can consider risk mgmt practices.” -Holmquist | #CSD09

“You can’t buy your way out of a data breach.” -Holmquist | #CSD09 | #riskmanagement

RT @ scotpe Adding: “chief security officer does not belong in IT.” Where does s/he belong? [ <-- Good question. Any answers? ]

Lundquist recommends forming a #security council. Give it authority, include senior execs, make cross-disciplinary, safe & visible. #CSD09

Key insight for creating a culture of cooperation vs. risk: “Make it safe to fail” -Holmquist | Don’t underestimate “gut feelings” #CSD09

Back to #compliance basics: “Everything starts with a risk assessment, not controls. Manage to assessed risk, not perceived risk.” | #CSD09

“Insiders are exponentially more of a threat than outsiders. The ability to respond quickly & effectively is critical” -Holmquist | #CSD09

“You can approach assessing risk in 4 ways: IT systems, electronic data, physical files & third parties. Focus on accountability.” #CSD09

“Risk is quantified in 4 broad categories: What’s at risk? What would be the impact? What could be the source? What can we mitigate?” #CSD09

RT @ scotpe Scare the CEO: Statistically speaking, “someone is planning to steal your data right now, thinking about it or doing it” #CSD09

Paused for another message from another sponsor of #CSD09 & a networking break. Door prize drawing up next for a Flip, iPod & a GPS unit.

Managing the Cost and Complexity of Compliance through Governance

Now up at #CSD09: Anker on managing the cost & complexity of #compliance through #governance. Session info: http://bit.ly/J9OP

Anker began his seminar at #CSD09 talking about the importance of IT governance. @ rlebeaux just reported on that: | #TTGT

@ rlebeaux that reported on aligning IT governance & corporate governance in an economic #recession -> http://bit.ly/PDfkk

Insurance for IT risk? Anker notes standard policies may not address IT exposures like a data breach or reputational damage. #CSD09

“An organization’s info & other intangible assets account for 80%+ of its market value.” -IT Governance Institute (ITGI) | #CSD09

In discussing key requirements of the new MA data protection law, Anker notes WISP: written information security policy | #CSD09 | #acronym

Great Q&A on provisions of the MA data protection law w/Anker to end. @rwestervelt reported on its extension: http://bit.ly/yMBgP #CSD09

Conclusions from Compliance Decisions

You’ll be reading, hearing more and seeing more of Holmquist, Anker and Mackey on SearchCompliance.com. All three men will be contributing experts in upcoming articles, podcasts or video.

Writers from both SearchSecurity.com and SearchCompliance.com will continue reporting on the Massachusetts data protection law and its ramifications for IT professionals and businesses nationwide. Clearly, many questions remain about the regulatory impact of the law on IT operations.

As Robert Westervelt reported, the deadline for the Massachusetts data protection and encryption law was extended to Jan. 1.

“We understand the impact of the current business environment and feel this is an appropriate time frame for companies to implement the necessary protections,” Daniel C. Crane, the Undersecretary of the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, said in a statement.

Westervelt noted a key change in the updated version of the regulation: “The extension includes a revision to the rules relaxing a requirement holding third parties accountable to the security rules. Under the original law, companies had to attest that a third-party provider was compliant with the regulations.”

As noted to the audience during the question-and-answer session with Anker, SearchCompliance.com recorded a podcast last month with Gerry Young and David Murray of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation. The CIO and general counsel, respectively, discuss the details of the new data protection rules:

Massachusetts data protection law mandates IT compliance [Download the MP3]

The provision of third-party compliance as proven by a “WISP” came up during the course the interview, if not under that name. Regardless of the documentation requirements, small businesses and enterprises alike considering outsourcing data protection and encryption compliance will need to make sure that service providers, VARs and consultants certify and appropriately explain where and how their work brings an organization into compliance with the Massachusetts statute.

On a final note, we picked up dozens of followers on Twitter yesterday and earned two kind endorsements of our coverage from PrivacyProf and DanPhilpott. Thank you, Dan and Rebecca!