<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: United States: Pending Changes To California’s Data Breach Law: New Burdens For Retailers?</title>
	<link>http://www.debitcardnews.com/2007/09/28/united-states-pending-changes-to-california%e2%80%99s-data-breach-law-new-burdens-for-retailers/</link>
	<description>The Latest News from the Credit and Debit World</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:54:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Benjamin Wright</title>
		<link>http://www.debitcardnews.com/2007/09/28/united-states-pending-changes-to-california%e2%80%99s-data-breach-law-new-burdens-for-retailers/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Benjamin Wright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:51:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.debitcardnews.com/2007/09/28/united-states-pending-changes-to-california%e2%80%99s-data-breach-law-new-burdens-for-retailers/#comment-2</guid>
		<description>In AB 779, proposed Civil Code Section 1724.4(b) is poorly drafted and confusing. It is not clear whether 1724.4(b) covers Internet and mail-order merchants (although the legislature probably did desire to cover those merchants). 1724.4(b)(2) is muddled about what does and does not constitute "sensitive authentication data" that a merchant is forbidden from storing. A literal reading of the words of 1724.4(b)(2) would forbid merchants from storing zip codes, even though Internet and mail-order merchants need to store zip codes for operational purposes. Pending Section 1724.4(b)'s poorly crafted language will be a roadblock as innovators try to invent the next PayPal. See detailed analysis at &lt;a&gt;hack-igations.com&lt;/a&gt; --Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In AB 779, proposed Civil Code Section 1724.4(b) is poorly drafted and confusing. It is not clear whether 1724.4(b) covers Internet and mail-order merchants (although the legislature probably did desire to cover those merchants). 1724.4(b)(2) is muddled about what does and does not constitute &#8220;sensitive authentication data&#8221; that a merchant is forbidden from storing. A literal reading of the words of 1724.4(b)(2) would forbid merchants from storing zip codes, even though Internet and mail-order merchants need to store zip codes for operational purposes. Pending Section 1724.4(b)&#8217;s poorly crafted language will be a roadblock as innovators try to invent the next PayPal. See detailed analysis at <a>hack-igations.com</a> &#8211;Benjamin Wright, Dallas, Texas</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
