Industries dodge breach blame
WASHINGTON — Banks and big retailers are locked in a debate over the breach of consumer data that gripped Target Corp. during the holiday season. At issue: Which industry bears more responsibility for protecting consumers' personal information?
The retailers' argument: Banks must upgrade the security technology for the credit and debit cards they issue.
The banks' counterargument: Newer electronic-chip technology wouldn't have prevented the Target breach. And retailers must tighten their own security systems for processing card payments.
The finger-pointing is from two industries with considerable lobbying might. Their trade groups have been bombarding lawmakers with letters arguing why the other industry must do more — and spend more — to protect consumers.
“Nearly every retailer security breach in recent memory has revealed some violation of industry security agreements,” the Independent Community Bankers argued last month. “In some cases, retailers haven't even had technology in place to alert them to the breach intrusion, and third parties like banks have had to notify the retailers that their information has been compromised.”
The National Retail Federation has fired back.
Retailers must accept “fraud-prone cards” issued by banks that are attractive to thieves, the federation's general counsel testified at a Senate subcommittee hearing on Monday. “Unlike the rest of the world, the U.S. cards still use a signature and magnetic stripe for authentication.”
Their antagonism aside, the two sides agree on one point: Congress should set a national standard for notifying consumers of any data breaches. A uniform standard would replace the hodgepodge of state guidelines.
In the middle are American consumers, many of whom say they're alarmed about the safety of their personal information since the Target breach. In an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted Jan. 17-21, nearly half of those surveyed said they've become extremely concerned about the vulnerability of their personal data when shopping in stores since the incident.
This week, Congress is examining data security breaches and how to handle them. Four committees have scheduled hearings.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, the head of the Federal Trade Commission and officials from the Secret Service and the Justice Department are set to testify. So are executives of Target and luxury retailer Neiman Marcus.
An estimated 40 million credit and debit card accounts were affected by the Target breach, which occurred between Nov. 27 and Dec. 15. Stolen were customers' names, credit and debit card numbers, card expiration dates, debit-card personal identification numbers and the embedded codes on the cards' magnetic strips.
Personal information — names, phone numbers and email and mailing addresses — was stolen for as many as 70 million Target customers who could have shopped before or after the Nov. 27 to Dec. 15 period.
The Target theft could prove to be the biggest data breach on record for a United States retailer. Minneapolis-based Target, the No. 2 American discounter, has acknowledged that news of the breach has scared some shoppers away. The company last month cut its earnings outlook for its fourth quarter, which covers the crucial holiday season. It warned that sales would be down for the period.
Still unknown is how the malicious software that was used to carry out the theft got into Target's computer system and how the hackers stole credentials from a Target vendor to enter the system. The identity of the vendor isn't known, either. The Secret Service has been investigating, and Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department is conducting a criminal probe to find those responsible.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- More companies embrace exchanges to curb health care costs
- Families, friends become lenders of last resort for homebuyers
- Hospitals turning to technology to tear down language barriers with patients
- Astronauts on space station to get 3-D printer
- Komando: It’s possible to keep your info safe online
- Retailers begin efforts early to woo holiday shoppers
- Investors urged to handle Indian stock fund with care
- Chemical used for freshness leaves EU with little appetite for U.S. apples
- Getting into executive pipeline may require schmoozing
- MarksJarvis: Benefits, not just pay, hit the skids
- Apple reaps some benefit from Microsoft deal with NFL