MATRIX and others should be aware of this > California Civil Code § 1798.82
 

California Civil Code § 1798.82 ? New Duties to Disclose A "Security Breach"

California has revised its business laws to require notification of customers if a "security breach" leads to the disclosure of customers' personal data. The new law is codified as an amendment to California Civil Code § 1798.82 and takes effect on July 1, 2003. It applies to any person or business that conducts business in California if the entity possesses "computerized ... personal information." If a "breach of the security system" occurs, defined as any unauthorized acquisition of personal data, the business must inform affected persons "immediately" unless law enforcement requests a delay. Consumers have a private right of action under the law for injunctive and civil damages relief, but no specific monetary penalties are suggested.

While the California law sets forth several types of notice that will be considered adequate, including written notice, these may be burdensome. Fortunately, the law also provides that notice will be deemed compliant if it is made in a manner specified in a company's existing "information security policy." Businesses, therefore, may wish to specify notification methods in their user agreements or privacy statements. Few businesses currently do so.

Summary

Taken together, the In Re Pharmatrak case and the California law reinforce the importance of the content of privacy statements and ensuring adoption of privacy practices that facilitate compliance with applicable law. Online businesses should periodically review their privacy statements, particularly as their uses of customer data change over time. To take advantage of California Civil Code § 1798.82, business should consider adding a clause explaining how legal notices will be disseminated to users if required. The clause need not include the words "security breach" but should be clear and conspicuous. If the business is already subject to federal laws requiring specific security notices, such as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (financial data) or the HIPAA Privacy Rule (medical records), the California notice can accompany one of those items.

Source: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher a major LA Law Firm

hmm so a california resident could sue them? where is matrix based? does that neccisarily matter where there offices are?

I believe they are in California. So does that mean those of us in California can sue Matrix?

Yes, apparently there would be legal recourse based on this new law.

KRL

My gut feeling tells me that this whole "stolen" "hacked" db stuff is nothing but other bs and a coverup.

I always go with my gut feeling , and someone aint kosher here,

someone put apiece of bacon into the passover seder

sue those fuckers

I'll wait and see.

If billing providers, paysite programs, and other content providers can get taken for customer dumps (either social engineering or cracking), then I'm damn sure Matrix could.

Is the matric customer db/authentication system online?

Hurt em in the pocket if applicable

I hear you Juicy. Usually where there is smoke there is fire.

Norm mentioned he had a disgruntled employee. We should hear more on this for sure.

If indeed the db was stolen or hacked I'd like to find out who else was it sold to?

"a unauthorized acquisition of personal data"

What does this have to do with Matrix?

let's suppose the database was in fact stolen, and acacia bought/used it. again, just suppose it... might have some interesting consequences, with respect to acacia.

You're kidding right?

Most definitely.

Another possibility could be some talented fucking webmaster among us who has bought Acacia stock, knew Matrix had a nice list, knew a way to get it by either an inside contact scheme or hacking their server, and thought this expanded hunt to drag in more webmasters would boost the stock up.

Follow the money trail.

Nope... and if you think they didn't "authorize" Acacia to have that database.... pass whatever your smokin' around!:)

I've done business with Matrix, and I'm giving Norman the benefit of the doubt for right now. That's only fair until we see and find the truth.

There is no doubt in my mind though that this recent wave came from Matrix's db.

Yea, that's what happened... If I hacked the Matrix DB, I'd sell it to Acacia, not someone in the biz that knows what it's worth, on hopes it would boost the stock....right!


Face it.... Many were sold out by one of our own...

BS or nOt, this whole thing stinks!

I think Wizzo has a very good point here.

I wonder if anyone has filed complaints with the district attorney, FTC or other government agency in respect with the whole matrix matter, either for possible stock manipulation or simply for privacy violations.

WG

Do you have any clue what a 1 point move does if you hold alot of stock in a company? He didn't say they wanted their 10 shares to go up. Who knows how much money could be involved.

<img src="http://data.moneycentral.msn.com/scripts/chrtsrv.dll?Symbol=ACTG&C1=2&C2=&C5=9&C6=2003&C7=1 1&C8=2003&C9=0&CE=0&D3=0&D5=0&E1=0">

I'm very well aware, but your telling me that someone that:

Has the skillz to hack into Matrix and steal the DB and Has enough money or credit to purchase Large blocks of Acacia stock wouldn't find a better plan for profiting from their "assets"....

I could come up with dozens, if not 1000s of better plans to use those similar acts, that would make more money even if it caused Acadia's stock to double.

I personally don't hack and/or manipulate stock, because I'm not fond of prison, but it seems like far fetched theory at best....I still contend we were sold out by one of our own...

Yea, didn't this happen in the last week or so, looks like the plan is working well....