|
There is this fairy tale belief that legal justice in civil lawsuits punishes those who act poorly, while protecting and vindicating those who consistently do the right thing. Nowhere is this myth more wrong—indeed, polar opposite wrong—than when dealing with security breach issues of U.S. retailers. I’m going to try and avoid using modern-day chains to illustrate good and evil. Regrettably, I think it’s a safe bet that I am about two sentences away from failing that effort. Let’s take TJX as an example. (Only one sentence. I was close, though.) Based on various SEC filings and court documents, it’s clear that TJX engaged in a wide range of security procedures that were, to be charitable, less than diligent. But, as we’ve pointed out many times, the millions in expenses that TJX has had to spend had absolutely nothing to do with any alleged security sloppiness. Read more. |
April 15th, 2008 at 11:12 am
This article is confounding.
Well secured retailers won’t suffer a breach of cardholder data in the first place, and therefore won’t be punished.
Moreover, publicly stating that you are PCI compliant does not mean you are actually PCI compliant.
Thirdly, thinking that PCI compliance is a shield to all lawsuits and liability is wrong. Security pros, talk to your lawyers, ask them about T.J. Hooper.
We don’t know what happened in this case, so to assume that Hannaford was diligent is premature (and that is what we will find out in litigation — that is the system we use to settle disputes in this country, like it or not). This article has jumped the gun.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Editor’s Note: For the record, we didn’t Hannaford was diligent. We have raised many questions about that and in this story, stressed that we don’t know yet. But we were talking the theory that even IF Hannaford was diligent, it doesn’t provide legal protection. If was the irony that, theoretically, a retailer with perfect security might get hurt more than one with terrible security. Just something to chew on.