Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Implementing Best Practices Before and After a Security Breach Can Mitigate Corporate Risk
Victims of personal data security breaches are showing their displeasure by terminating relationships with the companies that maintained their data. A 'National Survey on Data Security Breach Notification,' released Sept. 26, 2005 by privacy think tank Ponemon Institute and sponsored by White & Case, indicates that 19% of Americans who have received notification that their personal data had been compromised due to a breach have terminated or plan to terminate their relationship with the company where the security breach occurred. Another 40% say that they are considering whether to take their business elsewhere as a result of the breach, and a whopping 58% say that the incident has decreased their trust and confidence in the company. Percentages set forth in this article are based on the total number of survey respondents who reported receiving a breach notification.
The force driving these disclosures and the consumers' subsequent discomfort with the situation is new data privacy laws in California and over 20 other states that for the first time preclude companies from keeping certain security breaches secret and require them to notify individuals that the security of their personal information has been breached. And the new laws allow government enforcers to impose stiff fines (or, in the case of California, expressly set forth a private right of action per Calif. Civ. Code Section 1798.84(a)) on companies that fail to handle disclosure properly or to take reasonable steps to protect personal data in the first place. Indeed, in some situations failure to disclose a privacy breach might trigger liability under the securities laws, and even possibly spark an investigation by the SEC if, for example, management continued trading in a company's stock after knowing of the breach.
Even more alarming, 5% of those surveyed say that they have hired a lawyer to file suit against the organization due to the breach. This last statistic should be of particular interest in light of some media reports suggesting that as many as 55 million Americans may have received security breach notices. Indeed, when combined with the reality of several class-action suits based on security breaches that were filed in California, these findings should cause concern among in-house counsel responsible for privacy compliance.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.