Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Internet Privacy: Do You Know Who's Collecting Information About You?
While savvy users of the Internet may be aware of the multitude of ways that personal information can be monitored and collected on the Web, most users are likely oblivious to the information trail they leave behind. How many readers of this publication, a population plainly concerned with privacy issues, have read the privacy policies of their favorite Web sites? If you have not, you may be surprised to learn about the amount of information collected by even the most popular and mainstream sites. For example, when a user requests and views a Web page from Yahoo!, that request is logged on Yahoo!'s servers with information including the IP address of the computer that requested the page. Even if information is not purposely collected, just about everything a person does on the Web is stored somewhere for at least some period of time.
Web surfers may take some comfort in the fact that the information they leave behind often does not itself contain their names or other personal identifying information. What the information often does contain, however, is their IP addresses. An IP address is a unique address assigned to every computer on the Internet. An Internet Service Provider can easily determine the name of a customer from an IP address used during a particular time period. As a result, finding the identity of users on the Web is often just a subpoena away.
Fundamentally, one question is what, if anything, sets information on the Web apart from other types of information, such as personal diaries and anonymously authored articles, in which people have an expectation of privacy or anonymity? It is not uncommon, even in non-Web situations, for information expected to remain private or anonymous to be revealed as a result of a subpoena or other legal process. One important distinction, however, is that in such a non-Web situation, an individual is typically aware of the documents and records he or she is creating. In contrast, on the Web, enormous amounts of private information may be collected about an individual without that person having any clue at all.
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.