201 CMR 17.00
Massachusetts General Law
The Massachusetts General Law Chapter 93H and its new regulations 201 CMR 17.00 require that any companies or persons who store or use personal information (PI) about a Massachusetts resident develop a written, regularly audited plan to protect personal information. Both electronic and paper records will need to comply with the new law. The regulations went into effect on March 1, 2010. The law was originally supposed to go into effect on January 1, 2009, but then was pushed to May 1 and then January 1, 2010, and then to March 1, 2010, due to the state of the economy and confusion about the law.
Identity theft and fraud are the major concerns at the core of the implementation of the 201 CMR 17.00. For example, if a Massachusetts resident's information is leaked or captured, there could be serious consequences for the business that allowed the breach and for the individual whose information was leaked. Therefore, making changes to keep residents' information secure will be required to avoid security breach and fines.
According to the regulations, companies will need a written security plan to safeguard their contacts' or employees personal information. It will need to be illustrative of policies that demonstrate technical, physical, and administrative protection for residents’ information. The plan will need to be written to meet industry standards.
“201 CMR 17.00” enters the record as massachusetts General Law. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Massachusetts and General can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“201 CMR 17.00” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Massachusetts and General provides the most credible route into that argument.
Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 23, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q16153899. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2010 and 2009.
Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “201 CMR 17.00”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow 201 CMR 17.00 primary sources, 201 CMR 17.00 archive and Massachusetts research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “201 CMR 17.00”?
- What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “201 CMR 17.00” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.