WISP requirements in Alaska
Alaska is distinctive because the Attorney General step is tied to the decision not to notify consumers, not a universal breach filing. An Alaska incident file should preserve the acquisition analysis, discovery or notification date, scope/restoration rationale, law-enforcement delay if any, written no-likelihood-of-harm determination and Attorney General notice if used, plus the 1,000-resident consumer-reporting-agency threshold review.
Key facts
- Alaska firms should keep a written security program tied to the FTC Safeguards Rule and IRS taxpayer-data guidance.
- Resident notice in the most expeditious time possible and without unreasonable delay after discovery or notification, subject to law-enforcement delay and scope/restoration needs; owner/licensee notice applies when maintained information is not owned; Attorney General written notice applies for a no-likelihood-of-harm determination; CRA notice applies for more than 1,000 residents.
- Provide written notification to the Alaska Attorney General when relying on the Alaska no-notice exception after an appropriate investigation determines that harm to affected consumers is not reasonably likely; preserve the written determination for five years.
Key takeaways
- Alaska firms should keep a written security program tied to the FTC Safeguards Rule and IRS taxpayer-data guidance.
- Resident notice in the most expeditious time possible and without unreasonable delay after discovery or notification, subject to law-enforcement delay and scope/restoration needs; owner/licensee notice applies when maintained information is not owned; Attorney General written notice applies for a no-likelihood-of-harm determination; CRA notice applies for more than 1,000 residents.
- Provide written notification to the Alaska Attorney General when relying on the Alaska no-notice exception after an appropriate investigation determines that harm to affected consumers is not reasonably likely; preserve the written determination for five years.
- The WISP should preserve evidence, remediation steps, and annual review records.
Do Alaska tax preparers need a WISP?
Yes, if they are covered by the FTC Safeguards Rule or IRS tax-data security expectations, they should maintain a written plan. Alaska state breach-notice duties make incident planning especially important.
The WISP should start with federal obligations because the Safeguards Rule supplies the security-program structure.
Alaska does not create a routine Attorney General filing for every noticed breach; written notice to the Attorney General is tied to a documented no-notice determination when the covered person concludes harm is not reasonably likely.
What is specific to Alaska?
Resident notice in the most expeditious time possible and without unreasonable delay after discovery or notification, subject to law-enforcement delay and scope/restoration needs; owner/licensee notice applies when maintained information is not owned; Attorney General written notice applies for a no-likelihood-of-harm determination; CRA notice applies for more than 1,000 residents. The plan should identify who evaluates state notice, who contacts counsel, and where the decision record is kept.
State breach-notification law does not replace the Safeguards Rule. It adds a state-specific response layer when an incident affects Alaska residents.
Alaska residents whose personal information was subject to a breach of the security of the information system after the covered person discovers or is notified of the breach, unless the statutory no-likelihood-of-harm determination is made after investigation and written Attorney General notification.
Provide written notification to the Alaska Attorney General when relying on the Alaska no-notice exception after an appropriate investigation determines that harm to affected consumers is not reasonably likely; preserve the written determination for five years.
What should the WISP say?
It should describe real safeguards, assign responsibility, map vendors and systems, and include an incident-response path that reaches state-law review quickly.
For a small firm, the strongest plan is plain and evidence-backed: MFA records, backup tests, access reviews, training, vendor lists, and remediation dates.
The plan should never promise a control that is not actually in place.
| Topic | Alaska planning note | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Federal WISP | Use 16 CFR Part 314 as the program backbone | WISP and annual review |
| IRS tax data | Account for taxpayer records, PTIN practice, portals, and e-file workflows | System inventory and access list |
| Breach notice | Resident notice in the most expeditious time possible and without unreasonable delay after discovery or notification, subject to law-enforcement delay and scope/restoration needs; owner/licensee notice applies when maintained information is not owned; Attorney General written notice applies for a no-likelihood-of-harm determination; CRA notice applies for more than 1,000 residents. | Incident clock and counsel review record |
| Regulator path | Provide written notification to the Alaska Attorney General when relying on the Alaska no-notice exception after an appropriate investigation determines that harm to affected consumers is not reasonably likely; preserve the written determination for five years. | Notification decision log |
| State statute | Alaska Stat. §§ 45.48.010–45.48.090 | Source URL retained in page sources |
FAQ
Is this legal advice?
No. Policywright is a configurable template product, not a law firm and not legal advice. A qualified lawyer should review state-law reliance or breach-notification decisions.
Does a small firm still need a written plan?
Yes. The Safeguards Rule requires a written information security program for covered financial institutions, and IRS guidance tells paid tax preparers to maintain a written data security plan.
What if a control is not in place yet?
A serious WISP should not pretend. It should identify the gap, assign an owner, set a target date, and preserve a dated remediation record.
Does Alaska have its own WISP law?
This page does not claim a standalone Alaska WISP statute for every firm. It explains how federal WISP duties should be paired with Alaska breach-notification planning.
Who reviews Alaska breach notice?
The incident plan should route state-law decisions through qualified counsel and preserve any Alaska Attorney General regulator-notice analysis.
Sources
- FTC Safeguards Rule, 16 CFR Part 314 (eCFR)
- FTC, Safeguards Rule: What Your Business Needs to Know
- FTC, Safeguards Rule notification requirement now in effect (16 CFR 314.4(j), eff. May 13, 2024)
- IRS Publication 5708, Creating a Written Information Security Plan
- IRS Publication 4557, Safeguarding Taxpayer Data
- IRS Form W-12, PTIN Application and Renewal
- IRS Publication 1345, Handbook for Authorized IRS e-file Providers
- Alaska Statutes, AS 45.48.010–45.48.090
- Alaska Department of Law consumer laws: Personal Information Protection Act
- Alaska State Legislature HB 65 Personal Information Protection Act amendments
Build a Alaska-aware WISP packet.
Policywright generates a source-cited WISP and incident response plan you can review with counsel.
Start the questionnaire