The UPMC data breach: Larger questions
Serious concerns raised by UPMC's April announcement that hackers had stolen 27,000 employees' personal information from its payroll system are only heightened by word that all of UPMC's 62,000 workers could have been affected.
The question of how this could have happened in the first place looms larger. So do questions about UPMC's grasp of its own data security and its response to this hack.
After all, UPMC said it learned of the breach when employees reported fraudulent tax returns had been filed using their identities. And with federal prosecutors, the IRS, the Secret Service, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and police investigating, UPMC now says it was informed by authorities that all employees could have been affected. Why didn't UPMC detect the breach — and realize how extensive it was — on its own?
When hackers hit health care, patient or payment records — not payroll data — usually are stolen, according to Larry Ponemon, president and founder of the Ponemon Institute, a Michigan cybercrime research organization. “Employee data,” he says, “tends to be better protected.” Why wasn't UPMC employees' payroll information “better protected”?
Those responsible for this hack must be brought to justice, of course. And UPMC, owing its employees far better payroll security, must take a more proactive approach to avoid a repeat of this data breach, which its 62,000 employees never should have had to worry about.
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 â 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.