Slashdot Mirror


Document Disposal Law Kicks In

dougrun wrote to link to a story on MSNBC regarding a new federal law requiring individuals who handle other people's personal information to dispose of the data properly. From the article: "Recycling the paperwork isn't good enough -- it must be destroyed, the rule says, rendered useless to anyone who might stumble upon it. The FTC can sue and obtain fines of up to $2,500 for each instance of neglect."

38 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. What about online electronic records? by Hulkster · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I've read several articles about this legislation, but there is very little information about electronic records. I see a a brief mention about "discarding a computer's hard drive" ... but what about online record keeping? I gotta believe there is a cottage industry that provides web access for folks to track their hired help - who is liable if that becomes public? And what happens if someone hacks into your computer?

    A cute McDonald French Fry

    1. Re:What about online electronic records? by treff89 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As inferred above, I put forward the notion that this law is powerless. Not only are things such as computers not thoroughly covered (leaving numerous loopholes for defence in a court of law), but the government has exempted themselves. Clearly, they therefore do not take this seriously, and this law is all about people coming home, thinking "Look at the good the government is doing for my privacy!" and nothing about actually making a difference. (Footnote: No party based comment, I live in Australia.) (FN2: IANAL.)

    2. Re:What about online electronic records? by darkonc · · Score: 2, Informative
      And what happens if someone hacks into your computer?

      It seems to talk about disposal, not storage, so if someone breaks into your computer, then I'd guess it's not covered. On the other hand, I'd strongly suggest that people get a knoppix CD and learn to type 'shred /dev/hda' before they throw their computers into the dumpster.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    3. Re:What about online electronic records? by networkBoy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what about this incident?
      http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4451423/detail. html
      Details how Farmers insurance threw confidential docs in the trash (SSNs, Acct numbers, statements, claims, etc.)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    4. Re:What about online electronic records? by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative

      The United States Government takes it seriously. While they may be exempt from this law, there are regulations and policies in place to safeguard personal information. These policies are stricter than anything you're likely to find in the private sector.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:What about online electronic records? by SlamMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bah. Just because a law doesn't cover everything you think it should doesn't make it powerless. If someone puts in a law that increases speeding fines in school zone, but doesn't do anything to drug usage or having firearms, its still useful tool against speeding in school zones.

      --
      Mod point free since 2001
    6. Re:What about online electronic records? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Informative

      It applies to online records, but 1) it only applies to consumer credit reports, and 2) it only applies to disposal, not storage. From FTC.gov:

      The Disposal Rule requires disposal practices that are reasonable and appropriate to prevent the unauthorized access to - or use of - information in a consumer report. For example, reasonable measures for disposing of consumer report information could include establishing and complying with policies to:
      ...
      * destroy or erase electronic files or media containing consumer report information so that the information cannot be read or reconstructed;
    7. Re:What about online electronic records? by The+Snowman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The United States Government takes it seriously. While they may be exempt from this law, there are regulations and policies in place to safeguard personal information. These policies are stricter than anything you're likely to find in the private sector.

      Specifically, the Privacy Act of 1972. In a sentence, it mandates that all federal government employees will treat personal information with respect.

      --
      24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
    8. Re:What about online electronic records? by mikael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are numerous stories in the UK about people buying second hand laptops and finding military and local government data on them.

      I personally found a couple of PC cases being thrown out on a skip. Everything had been stripped down and removed except for the hard disk drives, which were held in place by star shaped screws. If disk drives were designed to be installed/removed in a more modular fashion, then it would be a lot easier to reuse them rather than throw them out.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    9. Re:What about online electronic records? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I recently picked up an old PC from a friend that he obtained from an auction of property from a local small (around 35 employees) grocery store that closed.

      Apparently, this was either the personnel managers' or store managers' PC, as there were employee and payroll records, including SSNs, bank account routing numbers, medical insurance info, drivers license numbers, names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. on the hard drive.

      The only precaution taken, it seems, was to wipe the boot sector of the drive, which any linux/FreeBSD rescue or live CD can recover/rewrite in a few seconds. Luckily for them I'm honest, and used a hard drive overwrite utility to make the data relatively unrecoverable.

      Makes one start thinking about all ones' previous jobs, and what kind of data storage disposal policies (if any) they might have had. Scary.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. Sigh... more landfill trash... by linolium · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I really hope these masses of shredded papers aren't dumped in our landfills... I think we
    already have enough junk in there that won't be decomposing any time soon.

    1. Re:Sigh... more landfill trash... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really hope these masses of shredded papers aren't dumped in our landfills

      1. Where do you think it all goes now?

      2. Shredding the paper most likely *helps* it decompose as it provides more corners and surface area for the bacteria to attack.

    2. Re:Sigh... more landfill trash... by Thng · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It should be recycled, and afaik, the document destroyers in my town do that, and ship some of the paper to a nearby egg crate manufacturer.

      I somewhat doubt that it will lead to so much more in landfills. if they recycled documents before, then they'll still probably recycle them, just probably exert more work to do so (or give to document destruction service). If they didn't recycle before (ie, just threw it all in the trash)... well, actually, it might not be a bad idea to let someone else deal with it totally (document destruction service)

      regarding it decomposing in landfills... not really A few (10?) years ago, Discover magazine had an article on this too. 40 year old newspapers (at the time), readable.

    3. Re:Sigh... more landfill trash... by krbvroc1 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I was under the impression shredded paper is not as useful for recycling. The ability to recycle paper depends on the strength and length of the paper fibers. Shredded paper has lost a lot of strength and has short fibers due to being cut. That means that whereas regular paper can be recycled into some lesser form of paper, shredded paper must be used for something like a cheap cardboard/egg crates.

      Regardless, privacy is more important to me than the landfill.

    4. Re:Sigh... more landfill trash... by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you really think that fast food outlets cared about anything other then the fact that paper/cardboard wrappers are cheaper then foam wrapers? They may say it was for enviromental reasons, but I persoanlly believe they was an afterthought and that they wouldn't have switched if there hadn't also been a money saving aspect.

  3. And all those outsourced jobs? by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What about the work that are outsourced to foreign countries? Every now and then we hear stories about foreign workers taking liberities with personal information, a Federal law doesn't exactly cover foreign soil.

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:And all those outsourced jobs? by hughk · · Score: 2, Informative
      The organisation doing the outsourcing must be able to show that they applied due dilligence when qualifying the suppler/service provider. You cannot be permitted to outsource responsibility.

      If Ford sell you a car with tires imported from another country and they keep blowing up, it is still Ford's responsibility.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    2. Re:And all those outsourced jobs? by The+Dark+P · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most foreign countries have stricter data protection laws than the US. I worked at an office which handled personal data from medical studies, in lots of cases they were worried about sharing data with their US counterpart because their data protection laws were not strict enough, likewise, the australian branch was less keen to share with us because their data protection laws are stricter still.

  4. define "destroyed" by tfoss · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It's pretty clear that even cross-cut shredders won't do the job. There are commerical ventures that charge by the volume of shredded paper for document reconstruction. Scan all the pieces (strip, cross-cut or confetti) and let imaging software piece them together. The slow step is taping the shreds to white paper for scanning. Seems that incineration, some beefy acid, or some kind of serious ink solvent would be needed to comply.

    -Ted

    --
    -=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
    1. Re:define "destroyed" by thogard · · Score: 2, Informative

      The easy way is you scan each rectangle and then run length encode each edge and you sort that in combination with length and you end up with a nice list of which bits go next to which other bits. If the shreds are small than 2mm x 2mm, its trivial to decode if you can get all the bits scanned.

  5. Re:Work will be fun... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Step 1: make a rule that no paper of any kind goes into any wastebasket at your business.
    Step 2: Buy a stove that can burn paper
    Step 3: Heat your business with waste paper, and cut down on your garbage bill.
    Step 4: Profit!

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  6. Normally, the government is there to... by ThePromenader · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..make laws that, through our supposedly demcratic system, on our behest and vote, "protect and serve" us by putting into black and white writ all that we deem harmful. With this in mind, my question is this: Who would most want to be protected from incompletely destroyed "sensitive" documents?

    The article speaks of the "good it does for the little people" - but who asked for this law? Wouldn't it be better (and more targeted) to fine people who steal identity? Is the government going to spend billions checking every garbage can to enforce this law? This law reeks of one made for unwritten "other" purposes. Most likely this administration's own.

    I smell something burning. Something shredded.

    --

    No, no sig. Really.

    ThePromenader
  7. Re:Work will be fun... by darkonc · · Score: 2, Informative
    Step 2: Buy a stove that can burn paper

    Some cities (at least it's the case here in Vancouver) have zoning bylaws that don't allow regular wood (or, by implication, paper) burning fireplaces and stoves to be installed anymore. This may not be feasible.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  8. classic commercial by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Funny

    One of the funniest TV commercials I've ever seen was an Xmas commercial that started out with snow falling down onto a city street to the tune of "Let it Snow, Let it Snow". The camera pans up toward the top of a nearby building. Eventually we see that most of the "snow" is really from a bunch of accountants frantically shredding documents Arthur Anderson style with the windows open. Then the announcer says, "Whether you've been naughty or nice, enjoy a cup of [product] this holiday season".

  9. Dangerous Law by Maljin+Jolt · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would rather suggest not to memorize other people's personal information, for obvious reason...

    --
    There you are, staring at me again.
  10. Re:The actual law by darkonc · · Score: 4, Informative
    OK: Found it.

    The entirety of H.R.2622 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 and the specific section SEC. 216. DISPOSAL OF CONSUMER REPORT INFORMATION AND RECORDS.

    The actual imortant part of this is the regulations (which may be yet to be created) for what needs to be done to appropriately destroy associated data. Hopeflly most people should be able to get away with just doing a single write of zeroes or pseudo-random data, while places like equifax should be required to do a bit more work. (because their collections would be especially valuable).
    Of course, knowing the way that the political system works, it's probably going to end up being the other way 'round.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  11. Bah, no problem! by ChePibe · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just print them out and shred them! Problem solved! All of your sensitve data is safe, and the only copy of it destroyed!

    That's what my grandmother (bless her soul) does everytime she needs to get rid of information. Seems to work for her...

  12. Re:Are we catching up with every one else? by jago25_98 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here, here!

    I take it this is a US article?

  13. I used shredders in the Navy by Urusai · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is no way you could recover anything but wood pulp from those things. They rendered paper to a fluffy mass with individual chunks around a millimeter in size. I've never seen shredders as beefy as those for sale in the civilian world. I wonder if this is intentional...

    1. Re:I used shredders in the Navy by technothrasher · · Score: 2, Informative
      I've never seen shredders as beefy as those for sale in the civilian world.

      They're available, but I haven't actually seen one in use outside of the military or defense contractors.

  14. Likely toothless by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 4, Informative

    We have similar laws here in Canada, but they are an utter joke. Under the BC Personal Information Protection Act, there are stiff penalties on paper, but the enforcement procedure requires a minimum of six months of attempting to affect things internally to the organization, before an investigator from the privacy commissioner's office will even speak to you. Even then, the investigator doesn't really investigate anything, they just phone the organization who's in violation and ask them nicely to not do that. If the organization doesn't comply, back to square one with the six months of internal pressure. I left a job recently over this very issue...after I was asked to lower the security on the network, exposing insane amounts of client data to the bare internet. If the Act ever gets any teeth, my ass would be on the line. But I guess I needen't have worried, as there's no possibility of enforcement.

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  15. Um... what about Enron type stuff? by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So you are required to destroy documents unless you knowingly do so when there's about to be a federal investigation that will require those documents, in which case you can be sent to prison for destroying them? Sounds like a good reason not to use paper at all...

    --
    Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
    Africus aut Europaeus?
  16. Re:ugh by arkhan_jg · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Same problem as always with market forces instead of regulation; it relies on an informed and interested public allowing the problem to affect their purchasing decision.

    In this case, if your credit details get stolen from a dumpster, leading to identity 'theft'; how do you know which company in the last 6 months allowed your information to leak? Assuming you do find out, how do other people find out that information, since it's not exactly going to be large news?

    (our lead national story today; joe bloggs lost $200 when company X put his credit details in the garbage, leading to identity theft and an extra charge on his credit card. Can company X survive this devastating blow to it's consumer confidence?)

    So instead of putting a small burden on all businesses to buy and use a shredder for financial documents, we add a significant information gathering burden to all buyers to add to the rest of the information they have to find out about their business (do they harm dolphins? do they pollute more? do they hire third world children for virtually nothing? etc etc)

    We're also assuming the business with bad business practises has effective and equal competition in it's area, which people can go to.

    Market forces are useful for many things, but protecting customers from unethical business practises isn't one of them. Regulation is a far more effective method, as opposed to businesses dumping the costs that regulation would cause into an external cost on the rest of the economy. (time for customers, insurance costs for banks and credit institutions to cover fraud losses)

    --
    Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  17. Re:ugh by mcc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So... are people doing less business with businesses that are careless with personal information now?

    Have they ever shown signs of doing this? At all?

    No?

    So what, exactly, is the difference between "letting consumers police poor corporate identity safety policies" and "as a nation, doing nothing whatsoever about the corporate identity safety policy problem whatsoever"?

    I mean maybe there's this great libertarian fantasyland somewhere where people suddenly call up their rental car places and say "I want verifiable evidence that you shredded your copy of my credit report rather than putting it in a dumpster, and I'm canceling my business with you immediately if you don't!". However in the real world people just want to rent a car, and if you do call up your rental car company and say "by the way, what did you do with my credit report?" and they say "we shredded it", you do not have a way of telling whether or not they are telling the truth. A grand jury, however, does.

  18. Re:No Way to Win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    That is pretty much my thoughts on it, Alaska.

    Bad guy does bad things with data found in recycle bin. We all agree that bad guy is a criminal. So do we punish bad guy? ...No... We punish the business.

    I've been a victim of this kind of before myself.I worked in a pharmacy that also did home care. I had to go out this patients house that was way out in the boonies in a trailer complex. The kind of place that 60 miles of dirt roads around it with no addresses and no street signs. As the medical profession had already performed maximum cash extraction from this family, they no longer had a phone or any kind, so calling for directions out to RR-1102-L22-22 was simply impossible (and the post office can't legally give you directions anymore to those RR addresses due to an antistalking law).

    One of the RN's had made a map & another with directions to the place and stuck it in the patients medical record. After talking with the RN, I retrieved the medical record and made a copy of that page, the page with the map and stuck them in my folder so I could find my way out there. Didn't think another thing of it, we frequently exchanged maps of this type amoung the different services for the patients.

    When I got back to the office, I stuck the folder with only the map, directions, and other stuff completely related to my job function in with the rest of my work stuff in the employee (non-public accessable) area, it had plenty of other maps I had hand drawn for the same reason, our customers were in a 190 mile radius and most of that is pretty rural.

    Some pinhead came across it over the weekend and noticed the stripe on the top (which is on all of our medical records). Result? My contract with pharmacy terminated for improper medical records storage, and no chance to tell my side of story.

    It contained no personal medical information other than the patients name and their pharmacy ID-code.(Which is on the order sheets for everything anyway and I had to keep those as part of my contact, and even fed-ex boxes we ship to them.) Everything else I had blacked out with a piece of paper while copying. There was no issue with release, and no issue with non-authorized access (all of these patients signed a release which covered us). I ran it over with my lawyer and we couldn't find anything illegal in my actions, nor anything that violated patient conidentiality (I had full sets of signed releases from the patients, the pharmacy, the nursing company), but I was a contractor and not an employee so I couldn't do much about it.

  19. Re:2500 isn't much by pcmanjon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    " $2500 doesn't seem to be a very harsh punishment for my personal data being compromised when the FCC can fine companies $11000 per do not call violation."

    The government isn't concerned with fortune 500's disposal of information, but the mom and pop shops more than anything else. I was able to see the meeting on TV and thats what they said.

    They actually brought the donotcall bill up, and they said thats because fortune 500's make calls to homes more than mom and pops. -Shrugs-

  20. Re:ugh by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Funny

    I am going to point this article out to my boss first thing Monday and hopefully he will FINALLY decide to do at least minimal destruction of the paperwork we toss out.

    Hopefully he won't notice that the law only applies to consumer credit reports...

  21. How to properly dispose of documents... by jo42 · · Score: 2, Funny
    This is the intellectual property, patent pending, procedure that I have come up with to properly dispose of documents (FBI, CIA, NSA spook proof as well):

    You need a bucket. The size of the bucket depends on the amount of paper documents to be destroyed. The bucket can be metal or plastic. Wax lined paper buckets will not work.

    You tear up the paper documents into little pieces and put them in the bucket one handful at a time, sprinkling soggy coffee grounds on top of each layer. You then take a can or two, or more as needed of Pepsi(tm) and pour it on top. Mix the contents of the bucket. Preferably with a stick. You then piss in the bucket. Mix the contents again. Finally, you take a dump in the bucket. Mix thoroughly for the last time.

    I 100% guarantee that no one will be able to read the documents - or even want to...