Governator Kills Data Protection Law

eweekhickins writes "The Governator has killed a recent data protection law in California, and it won't be back. Using a tried-and-true argument, that the bill would have 'driven up the costs of compliance, particularly for small businesses,' California Governor Arnold Schwartzenneger vetoed what some are calling one of the nation's most stringent proposed e-tail data breach security laws."

Comments

"It won't be back"?

[whoever57]

Perhaps the submittor or editor could refrain from lame jokes when said joke is in conflict with the article:

Schwarzenegger, in his veto message explaining why he killed the bill, left the door open to possibly signing a reworked version of the bill.

Re:Too much effort to comply IS an excuse

[Harmonious Botch]

I own a small business. I spend at least 1/3 to 1/2 of my time doing govt paperwork, or complying with some govt standard which is either 1) an obviously good business practice that does not need to be legislated or 2) irrelevant or 3) stupid or 4) #2 and #3.

These legislators live in a hypothetical world of zero risk. Any problem that they see, they try to legislate out of existence. But they don't have to pay the bills. They don't have to make the decisions of how limited resources are applied to problems.

With all the taxes that I pay, I could hire another employee. But these well-meaning legislators have effectively fired him before I could ever hire him.

Laws have consequenses. And someday the consequence may be your job.

Spelt his name wrong, of course.

[Paperweight]

Sorry, I browsed for another post to mod-up but nobody made the point that Schwarzenegger was spelt wrong.

PCI-DSS is not as you describe.

[einhverfr]

Because of PCI compliance you have Linux/Unix admins across the country installing useless virus scanners that scan for windows viruses on their Linux/Unix machines. PCI compliance is a private initiative by the credit card companies. Then the problem is either with the admins or that the compliance people can't read.

The PCI-DSS 1.1 states:

5.1: Deploy anti-virus software on all systems commonly affected by viruses (particularly personal
computers and servers)
Note: Systems commonly affected by viruses typically do not include UNIX-based operating
systems or mainframes.[emphasis mine] Next time someone complains about the PCI-DSS requiring antivirus software on Linux/UNIX systems, you can point them to the fact that the standard specifically excluded these systems from the antivirus requirements.