Where the only harm alleged is mere “speculation as to a possible risk of injury,” a claim cannot survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, according to a District of Connecticut decision issued on August 31, 2009. McLoughlin v. People’s United Bank, Inc., and Bank of New York Mellon, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-00944-VLB (D. Conn. Aug. 31, 2009), thus follows a long and growing line of cases which simply hold that where there is no actual harm, there can be no case.
…

Undersecretary Barbara Anthony, of the Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, announced today revisions to Massachusetts’ data security regulations, as well as an extension of the applicable compliance deadline from January 1, 2010 to March 1, 2010.  (Previous to an earlier extension, the compliance deadline was May 1, 2009.)

The revised regulations emphasize their “risk-based” approach, enabling persons covered by the regulations to tailor their information security programs to their size, scope, type of business, resources, amount of personal information, and need.  These changes were primarily intended to ease the burden of the regulations on small businesses that may not handle a significant amount of personal information, or may not have the resources to develop a sophisticated security program.  That said, the changes apply to all business, not just small businesses.

In Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc., S147552 (Aug. 3, 2009), the California Supreme Court unanimously held that the mere placement of a hidden video camera in an employee’s office could constitute an invasion of privacy, even if the camera was never actually used to record the employee. Under the specific facts of the case, however, the Court ultimately found no liability because the intrusion was relatively minor, limited and justified, but California employers should be aware that the use of hidden surveillance cameras without notice or warning in “semi-private” office space is likely to produce an actionable claim for invasion of privacy in many cases.
…

In mid-September, Maine’s “Act to Prevent Predatory Marketing Practices against Minors” is scheduled to take effect.  Due to the lack of a scienter element in several of the requirements of this new law, this Act could have far-reaching consequences for all businesses that engage in direct marketing or that sell or transfer personal information to third parties, even if the business does not have knowledge that the information regards a minor.

In the context of wireless network security, we hear a lot about WEP vs WPA, but these technologies are not widely understood, especially among attorneys.

WEP and WPA are two alternative ways to secure a wireless network from unauthorized interception, and WPA is more secure than WEP. In fact, researchers have reported consistently for several years that it is relatively easy to break into a WEP-secured wireless network. For that reason, as discussed further below, industry standards as well as regulators require that WPA (instead of WEP) be used to secure wireless networks that are used to transmit sensitive information such as credit card numbers. Nonetheless, many companies are still using WEP.