Law / United States / Indiana

Disclosure of Security Breach Act, data base owner's duty to maintain reasonable security procedures and dispose of records

Ind. Code sec. 24-4.9-3-3.5

In force.

A security baseline statutes rule binding private bodies.

Obligation class
Security

What it requires

  • This binds any 'data base owner' that owns or licenses computerized data including personal information of an Indiana resident. A data base owner already maintaining its own data security procedures as part of an information privacy, security policy, or compliance plan under the USA PATRIOT Act, Executive Order 13224, the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, or Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and complying with that plan's own reasonable-procedures requirement, is exempt; a current or former health care provider that claimed the HIPAA-based exemption remains bound for personal information, including health records, if its own plan does not require, or is not implemented to provide, that protection once it stops being a HIPAA covered entity.
  • Implement and maintain reasonable procedures, including taking any appropriate corrective action, to protect and safeguard from unlawful use or disclosure any personal information of Indiana residents you collect or maintain.NIST CSF 2.0PR.DS-01
  • Do not dispose of or abandon records or documents containing unencrypted and unredacted personal information of Indiana residents without shredding, incinerating, mutilating, erasing, or otherwise rendering the information illegible or unusable.NIST CSF 2.0ID.AM-08
  • There is no private right of action for a violation. A knowing or intentional failure to comply with either duty is a deceptive act, actionable only by the Indiana Attorney General, who may seek an injunction, a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per deceptive act, and reasonable investigation and litigation costs; a related series of acts or omissions constitutes one deceptive act.

These lines are LexLint's reading of the law's text.

In the frameworks

NIST Privacy Framework
  • CT.DM-P5Data are destroyed according to policy.
  • PR.DS-P5Protections against data leaks are implemented.
NIST CSF 2.0
  • ID.AM-08Systems, hardware, software, services, and data are managed throughout their life cycles
  • PR.DS-01The confidentiality, integrity, and availability of data-at-rest are protected
CIS Controls
  • 3.10Encryption of sensitive data as it crosses networks.
  • 3.11Encryption of sensitive data where it is stored on servers and applications.
  • 6.8Access rights defined by job role, and kept up to date.
  • 7.1A documented, reviewed approach to finding and handling weaknesses.
FINOS AIGF
1 more
ENISA NIS2 guidance
  • 2.1Risk management framework
  • 3.1Incident handling policy
  • 4.1Business continuity and disaster recovery plan
  • 6.2Secure development life cycle
  • 6.5Security testing
  • 6.10Vulnerability handling and disclosure
2 more
  • 9.1Cryptography
  • 11.2Management of access rights

Our reading of where this law's duties sit in each framework, and in the NIST CSF 2.0, line by line beside each duty above. It never says that running a control meets the law. How we read a framework against the law

CIS Critical Security Controls® (CIS Controls®) v8.1 © Center for Internet Security, Inc. Safeguard numbers are used under a CIS Controls Supporter License; the one-line descriptions beside them are our own, not CIS text.

If you get it wrong

Criminal exposureNo

Private right of actionNo

Penalty structure

Civil penalty under Sec. 3.5(f)(2), recoverable only by the Attorney General. The statute's own unit is a 'deceptive act' rather than a bare violation: a failure to comply with the safeguards duty (subsection (c)) or the disposal duty (subsection (d)) in connection with related acts or omissions constitutes one deceptive act under subsection (g). This is separate from, and much lower than, the $150,000-per-deceptive-act penalty at Ind. Code sec. 24-4.9-4-2 for a failure of the article's own breach-notification duty, which is this jurisdiction's privacy-topic row, not this one.

Rule
Per violation only
As of
Currency
USD
Per violation unit
Violation
Per violation amount
5,000

Who enforces it

Enforcement body

The Indiana Attorney General may bring an action under this section to obtain an injunction, a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per deceptive act, and the Attorney General's reasonable costs of investigation and litigation. A knowing or intentional failure to comply with this section is actionable only by the Attorney General, never by a private plaintiff.

What this law does

Drafted with AI

Drafted with AI from the cited sources under the direction of UnGovr staff. UnGovr holds editorial responsibility for this page. How this site is made

Research summary

Legal information, not legal advice. This is LexLint's own research summary of a public legal source, and it creates no attorney-client relationship. For decisions that matter, consult qualified counsel in the relevant jurisdiction. About LexLint

A data base owner, a person that owns or licenses computerized data including personal information of an Indiana resident, must implement and maintain reasonable procedures, including taking any appropriate corrective action, to protect and safeguard that personal information from unlawful use or disclosure.

A data base owner must also not dispose of or abandon records or documents containing unencrypted and unredacted personal information of Indiana residents without shredding, incinerating, mutilating, erasing, or otherwise rendering it illegible or unusable. A data base owner that maintains its own data security procedures under a listed federal privacy or security regime, and complies with that regime's own reasonable-procedures requirement, is exempt.

A current or former health care provider that claimed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)-based exemption remains bound for personal information, including health records, if its own compliance plan does not require, or is not implemented to provide, that protection once the provider stops being a HIPAA covered entity.

A knowing or intentional failure to comply is a deceptive act, actionable only by the Indiana Attorney General, and a related series of acts or omissions in violation of this section constitutes one deceptive act. No day on which the provisions this entry describes came into force has been located.

When LexLint raises it

When your app profile says your app crawls the web, trains models, deploys a chatbot, sends automated outreach, makes high-risk automated decisions, processes voice recordings, processes biometric data, processes personal data, serves under-18s, operates a social platform, ships a mobile app, distributes a software product, generates content with AI, publishes adult content, operates an app store, reuses other publishers' content, records calls, records text chat or tracks devices.

Back to the example  ·  Lint your app

Page updated .