On January 2, 2013 The Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) announced that it had entered into a Resolution Agreement with Hospice of North Idaho (“HONI”) to settle alleged HIPAA violations resulting from the theft of an unencrypted laptop computer containing the electronic personal health information of 441 patients. This is the first HHS settlement involving the breach of protected health information (“PHI”) involving fewer than 500 individuals.
After being notified by HONI of the stolen laptop, the HHS Office Civil Rights (“OCR”) conducted an investigation and concluded the following:
- HONI did not conduct an accurate and thorough risk analysis as required by the HIPAA Security Rule, especially with respect to an evaluation of the likelihood and impact of potential risks to the confidentiality of electronic PHI maintained in and transmitted by portable devices.
- HONI did not have in place police or procedures to address the security of PHI stored or transmitted in portable electronic devices.
In entering into the Resolution Agreement, HONI agreed to pay $50,000 and enter into two-year corrective action plan with HHS. A copy of the Resolution Agreement can be found at: http://www.hhs.gov.privacy/hipaa/enforcement/examples/honi-agreement.pdf.
Although this case is unique in that it is the first settlement by HHS of a data breach involving fewer than 500 individuals, the facts that gave rise to the action by HHS are all too familiar. The breach resulted from the theft of an unencrypted laptop and HHS was troubled by the provider’s alleged lack of a risk analysis and appropriate policies and procedures to protect PHI stored in or transmitted by portable electronic devices. In this era of increased HIPAA enforcement, covered entities and business associates must remain vigilant in their HIPAA compliance efforts. This includes, without limitation, (i) conducting thorough risk assessments, (ii) developing and updating robust HIPAA policies and procedures, and (iii) conducting ongoing HIPAA training and awareness programs with all staff. In essence, affected entities must create what OCR has often referred to as a “culture of compliance.” Moreover, emphasis should be placed on the use and safeguards of portable electronic devices, which, as in this case, are frequently at the center of a data breach.







The recent decision The Queen v. Cole by the Supreme Court of Canada touches upon interesting issues regarding information privacy in the digital age.
As users constantly update their Facebook and other social networking profiles, they may be unwittingly doing something else as well: creating a cache of evidence for a future adversary to use against them in discovery and at trial. Trial courts have increasingly allowed parties to discover the private portions of social networking sites when doing so would likely lead to the disclosure of admissible evidence.



Jeremy Bentham used to refer to the common law as the “dog law”. As he explains it, “whenever your dog does anything you want to break him of, you wait till he does it, and then beat him for it. This is the way you make laws for your dog: and this is the way the judges make law for you and me.” .
The cyber-attacks recently launched by six individuals from the group Anonymous, an international hacktivist collective, against 13 Quebec government and police websites are but a fleeting glimpse of a much broader problem associated with the cyber world, most of which remains largely unseen. Succinctly stated, the cyber-attacks were a response to the Quebec Liberal party’s constitutionally questionable Bill 78 that was recently passed as a response to the student crisis sparked three months ago over the government’s planned 75% tuition increase. That six individual were arrested by law enforcement agencies and charged with mischief, conspiracy, and unlawful use of a computer should hardly be reassuring. 












I. 



















