Data Breaches, Privacy Violations, And Prosecutions
1. Overview: Data Breaches and Privacy Violations
Data breach: Unauthorized access or disclosure of sensitive, personal, or confidential information.
Privacy violation: Breach of legal or ethical obligations to protect personal information, which may or may not involve hacking or theft.
Legal framework:
Statutory laws: Many countries have laws like GDPR (EU), HIPAA (US healthcare), CCPA (California), and sector-specific privacy rules.
Criminal prosecutions: Unauthorized access, identity theft, or data misuse can result in criminal charges.
Civil remedies: Victims may sue for negligence, breach of contract, or invasion of privacy.
The main distinctions in prosecution often involve intentional hacking, negligent protection, or misuse of data.
2. Detailed Case Law Examples
A. Intentional Hacking / Data Theft
Case 1: United States v. Morris (1991)
Facts: Robert Tappan Morris created a computer worm that spread across the Internet, affecting thousands of computers.
Issue: Was his act a criminal violation under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)?
Holding: Morris was convicted of violating the CFAA because the worm caused unauthorized access and damage to government and private computers.
Significance: First major prosecution under the CFAA; established that unauthorized computer access causing damage is criminal.
Case 2: United States v. Mitnick (1999)
Facts: Kevin Mitnick, a notorious hacker, accessed corporate networks, stole proprietary software, and gained unauthorized information.
Issue: Can unauthorized access and theft of digital information constitute a federal crime?
Holding: Mitnick was prosecuted under the CFAA and wire fraud statutes. He received a prison sentence.
Significance: Demonstrated that even “non-physical” theft of data constitutes a prosecutable offense under federal law.
B. Data Breach with Negligence / Corporate Liability
Case 3: In re Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (2015)
Facts: Hackers gained access to Target’s payment system, exposing 40 million credit/debit card accounts.
Issue: Was Target liable for failing to protect customer data?
Holding: Target faced significant civil settlements and was scrutinized for negligent security practices.
Significance: Emphasized corporate responsibility to implement reasonable security measures and protect consumer data.
Case 4: In re Equifax, Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation (2019)
Facts: Equifax suffered a massive data breach exposing sensitive information of 147 million people.
Issue: Could Equifax be held accountable for failing to patch a known vulnerability?
Holding: Equifax agreed to a settlement exceeding $700 million to resolve claims.
Significance: Showed that negligence in data protection can result in massive civil penalties and regulatory oversight.
C. Privacy Violations / Unauthorized Use of Personal Data
Case 5: Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v. Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (2014) (EU Court of Justice)
Facts: A Spanish citizen requested removal of personal information from Google search results.
Issue: Can individuals request search engines to remove links containing personal data (“right to be forgotten”)?
Holding: Yes, the court recognized the “right to be forgotten” under EU privacy law.
Significance: Set a precedent for individual control over personal data in search results and privacy enforcement.
Case 6: Facebook, Inc. Cambridge Analytica Scandal (2018)
Facts: Cambridge Analytica harvested data of millions of Facebook users without consent for political advertising.
Issue: Did Facebook violate privacy regulations by allowing unauthorized data access?
Holding: While not a court ruling, regulatory agencies (FTC) fined Facebook $5 billion for privacy violations.
Significance: Highlighted corporate accountability for failing to control third-party access to personal data.
D. Criminal Prosecution for Identity Theft / Fraud
Case 7: United States v. Ulbricht (2015)
Facts: Ross Ulbricht operated the “Silk Road” darknet marketplace, enabling illegal drug sales and money laundering.
Issue: Can operating an online platform facilitating criminal activity, using anonymized data, constitute criminal liability?
Holding: Ulbricht was convicted on charges including conspiracy to commit money laundering, computer hacking, and trafficking in narcotics.
Significance: Demonstrates that digital anonymity and data manipulation do not protect against criminal liability.
3. Key Takeaways
Intent vs. Negligence:
Intentional hacking → criminal prosecution (e.g., Mitnick, Morris).
Negligent data protection → civil liability and regulatory fines (e.g., Target, Equifax).
Privacy laws are increasingly strict:
Individuals can demand deletion or protection of their data (e.g., Google Spain case).
Companies can be fined billions for misuse or failure to protect data (e.g., Facebook).
Data breaches have multi-dimensional consequences:
Criminal prosecution for hackers.
Civil liability for corporations.
Regulatory oversight and reputational damage.
Emerging trend: Courts and regulators treat data as a valuable asset, and mishandling it—whether through hacking, negligence, or misuse—can trigger severe penalties.
RELATED Blog
comments