Considere o texto abaixo para responder à questão.Parties Split on Data-Protection BillBy Jonathan KrimWashington Post Staff WriterFriday, November 4, 2005; D04
House Democrats and Republicans split sharply yesterday over
how to best protect consumers' personal data, as legislation to curb the persistent scourge of identity theft and fraud began to move on a fast track on Capitol Hill.
In a 13 to 8 vote along party lines, a subcommittee of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee approved a bill that would require
information brokers to submit plans for safeguarding private data to the
Federal Trade Commission for monitoring and review.
The bill also would establish the first nationwide requirement
for notification of consumers when certain breaches of data occur and
would force brokers to submit to security audits if their data banks are
compromised. But Democrats on the panel said the bill was filled with loopholes and would leave consumers ______
protected than they are now. They also accused the Republicans of
shutting them out of bipartisan negotiations, and of making last-minute
changes to agreed-upon provisions. Under the
bill, data brokers and other firms that store consumer data would have
to notify consumers that their information [ TO BREACH ] only when it
was determined that a "significant risk" of identity theft or other
fraud might result. That decision would be made by the company that was breached, which Democrats said was akin to having no requirement at all.
This year alone, tens of millions of consumers have been
notified of breaches at information brokers such as ChoicePoint Inc. and
LexisNexis, financial institutions, government agencies, universities,
online retailers and other firms. Many notices were sent out under a California law that covers any firm doing business in the state.
"No notices would have gone out under the standard put forth in
this bill," which would preempt state laws, said Rep. Janice D.
Schakowsky (D-Ill.). "We would not have known how badly corporations
treat personal information, nor would consumers have been able to take
action to protect themselves - even from financial identity theft - if this bill had been in place in February 2005."
Data brokers, direct marketers, financial institutions and
several large technology companies supported the approach of the bill,
as did FTC Chairman Deborah P. Majoras. They argue that thieves or
hackers cannot always use data they might gain access to, and that
bombarding consumers with notices every time a breach occurs would cause
people to ignore them. "That concern is
disingenuous," Schakowsky said yesterday. "The right response to
over-notification is not to restrict information and to keep consumers
and Congress in the dark. If we want to stop over-notification, then
corporations need to clean up their act so consumers' personal
information is not compromised in the first place."(Adapted from washingtonpost.com)A partir de if this bill had been in place in February 2005 (9o parágrafo), entende-se que
a) o evento relatado sobre a Califórnia ocorreu em fevereiro de 2005.
b) o projeto de lei deveria ter sido aprovado em fevereiro de 2005.
c) desde fevereiro de 2005 aumentou a incidência de quebra de sigilo na internet.
d) a preocupação com a segurança de informações pessoais dos consumidores data de fevereiro de 2005.
e) a tramitação da lei só teve início em fevereiro de 2005.