Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Why govern our information? Reason #9: Unnecessary business data multiplies data security exposures

By Peter Sloan on February 14, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

One Bullet in Gun BarrelHaving too much data causes problems beyond needless storage costs, workplace inefficiencies, and uncontrolled litigation expenses.  Keeping data without a legal or business reason also exacerbates data security exposures.  To put it bluntly, businesses that tolerate troves of unnecessary data are playing cybersecurity roulette … with even larger caliber ammunition.

Surprisingly few U.S. data security laws and standards expressly require that protected data be compliantly disposed of once legal and business-driven retention periods expire.   PCI DSS v3.2.1, Requirement 3.1, provides “[k]eep cardholder data storage to a minimum by implementing data retention and disposal policies ….”  HIPAA regulations  mandate that business associate agreements require service providers, upon contract termination, to return or destroy all PHI received or created on the covered entity’s behalf, if feasible.  Alabama and Colorado require that records containing state-level PII be disposed of when such records are no longer needed.  And biometric data privacy laws in Illinois, Texas, and Washington generally require that biometric data be disposed of once it has served its authorized purpose.

Instead, most such laws and standards focus on securely sanitizing or destroying storage media.  For example, the NIST Cybersecurity Framework v. 1.1 includes as a security control (PR.IP-6) that “[d]ata is destroyed according to policy,” and ISO 27002 (§ 8.3.2) provides that “[m]edia should be disposed of securely when no longer required, using formal procedures.”

But data security is not achieved by simply running through a checklist of explicit compliance requirements – it instead requires assessing risks and establishing effective security controls.  And one of the most powerful security controls is to not keep too much data, for too long.

It’s not possible for a breach to compromise the security of information that no longer exists, having already been disposed of when its legally required retention and business value expired.

That’s why the FTC has long counseled organizations to compliantly dispose of information once it’s no longer required for legal or business needs.  In the FTC’s Protecting Personal Information: A Guide for Business, this is the “Scale Down” principle:  “If you don’t have a legitimate business need for sensitive personally identifying information, don’t keep it. … If you have a legitimate need for the information, keep it only as long as it’s necessary.”

That’s also why the FTC has pursued enforcement actions against numerous companies for failing to timely dispose of protected information, such as BJ’s Wholesale Club; Cbr Systems, Inc.; Ceridian Corporation; DSW Inc, and Life is good, Inc.

Hacked company systems frequently contain two, three, or even four times more data than was needed for retention compliance or any valid business purpose.  The unnecessary data retention is a simple multiplier for the problem, in that breach notifications will be required for two, three, or four times the number of affected individuals.  But the unnecessarily retained data may also have exponential impact, for the larger numbers of affected individuals may push the breach beyond notification thresholds for regulators, may tilt economics in favor of a viable lawsuit against the company, and may pass a tipping point on lasting reputational damage.

Sure, excessive data storage is “cheap,” if you ignore the risks.  When you tally up the true cost of keeping data beyond any legal or business purpose, don’t forget to add a line item for data security exposure.  Because not if, but when, your systems are breached, the data security cost of unnecessary data retention is no longer a risk – it’s a reality.

Peter Sloan

Peter Sloan is the Managing Attorney at the law firm Information Governance Group, LLC.  Peter advises clients on how best to retain, secure, preserve, and dispose of information. He helps clients throughout the United States create, validate, and update retention schedules; implement compliant…

Peter Sloan is the Managing Attorney at the law firm Information Governance Group, LLC.  Peter advises clients on how best to retain, secure, preserve, and dispose of information. He helps clients throughout the United States create, validate, and update retention schedules; implement compliant information management policies and processes; and defensibly dispose of information. Peter also counsels clients on data security compliance and breach response readiness, and he works with clients to manage data breach response.

Peter has served clients across a broad range of industries, including energy, financial services, healthcare, engineering and construction, manufacturing, retail, technology, and transportation.

For more information about the Firm, please visit www.infogovgroup.com, or the Firm’s blog, Information Bytes.

Read more about Peter SloanEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Blog:
    Information Bytes
  • Organization:
    Information Governance Group
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo