Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Online Exclusive:</b> Cincinnati Attorney Handles Multiple Lawsuits for Recent Privacy Breaches
As electronic privacy incidents become more commonplace and new laws are written to protect individuals, it's natural that civil rights and class action attorneys are becoming more involved in the cases.
'Our firm specializes in civil rights issues, and to the extent a government entity is entrusted with private personal information and breaches that trust, it is a civil rights issue,' Cincinnati attorney Marc Mezibov (Mezibov & Jenkins) told The Privacy and Data Protection Legal Reporter.
In early July, Mezibov sued Ohio University ('OU') on behalf of two OU graduates for enabling computer hackers to break into the university's databases on at least five occasions, stealing Social Security numbers and names of an estimated 173,000 students, graduates, and staff members. Donald Jay Kulpa, 31, of Cincinnati, and Kenneth Neben, 34, now living in North Bergen, NJ, are seeking class action status for their lawsuit.
'The grounds for our lawsuit against OU are negligence and various Constitutional claims relating to OU's violation of our clients' right to privacy in their Social Security numbers,' said Mezibov. 'We're seeking credit monitoring for a period of time to minimize their risk of identity theft for the entire class, and, if appropriate, damages for those who incur actual losses. Because the security breach affected 173,000 people, it is our position that class resolution is appropriate.'
OU has yet to respond to the lawsuit. However, in recent weeks the school has taken several steps to improve its security. Last week, after receiving a report about lax security by the school's Computer and Network Services Department, the school's Board of Trustees suspended the director of the department and one of his staff members. The trustees then voted to spend up to an additional $4 million to bolster computer network security.
Mezibov also filed a class action lawsuit this spring on behalf of veterans whose names were on the laptop computer stolen from a Veterans Administration ('VA') staffer's home earlier this spring. Mezibov is seeking $1000 per victim, or about $26.5 billion, based on provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.
Even though the stolen laptop was recovered in late June and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ('FBI') says that the information on the computer was not compromised, Mezibov said, 'Our claims against the VA are very much alive. Even assuming that the FBI's findings are accurate, there still remains a significant number of veterans who spent money on services such as credit or identity monitoring.'
Mezibov noted that the VA told all veterans who called a toll-free phone number or visited a special Web site created after the incident came to light to be 'extra vigilant' in monitoring their finances. Given that admonition, thousands of veterans signed up for data-monitoring services, according to Mezibov, and he believes they should be reimbursed. 'We moved to certify a class for those individuals 2 weeks ago,' he said on July 13.
'We hope our lawsuits and others like them serve as a wake-up call to government, as well as private agencies, that information security has to be a top priority,' Mezibov said.
As electronic privacy incidents become more commonplace and new laws are written to protect individuals, it's natural that civil rights and class action attorneys are becoming more involved in the cases.
'Our firm specializes in civil rights issues, and to the extent a government entity is entrusted with private personal information and breaches that trust, it is a civil rights issue,' Cincinnati attorney Marc Mezibov (Mezibov & Jenkins) told The Privacy and Data Protection Legal Reporter.
In early July, Mezibov sued Ohio University ('OU') on behalf of two OU graduates for enabling computer hackers to break into the university's databases on at least five occasions, stealing Social Security numbers and names of an estimated 173,000 students, graduates, and staff members. Donald Jay Kulpa, 31, of Cincinnati, and Kenneth Neben, 34, now living in North Bergen, NJ, are seeking class action status for their lawsuit.
'The grounds for our lawsuit against OU are negligence and various Constitutional claims relating to OU's violation of our clients' right to privacy in their Social Security numbers,' said Mezibov. 'We're seeking credit monitoring for a period of time to minimize their risk of identity theft for the entire class, and, if appropriate, damages for those who incur actual losses. Because the security breach affected 173,000 people, it is our position that class resolution is appropriate.'
OU has yet to respond to the lawsuit. However, in recent weeks the school has taken several steps to improve its security. Last week, after receiving a report about lax security by the school's Computer and Network Services Department, the school's Board of Trustees suspended the director of the department and one of his staff members. The trustees then voted to spend up to an additional $4 million to bolster computer network security.
Mezibov also filed a class action lawsuit this spring on behalf of veterans whose names were on the laptop computer stolen from a Veterans Administration ('VA') staffer's home earlier this spring. Mezibov is seeking $1000 per victim, or about $26.5 billion, based on provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974.
Even though the stolen laptop was recovered in late June and the Federal Bureau of Investigation ('FBI') says that the information on the computer was not compromised, Mezibov said, 'Our claims against the VA are very much alive. Even assuming that the FBI's findings are accurate, there still remains a significant number of veterans who spent money on services such as credit or identity monitoring.'
Mezibov noted that the VA told all veterans who called a toll-free phone number or visited a special Web site created after the incident came to light to be 'extra vigilant' in monitoring their finances. Given that admonition, thousands of veterans signed up for data-monitoring services, according to Mezibov, and he believes they should be reimbursed. 'We moved to certify a class for those individuals 2 weeks ago,' he said on July 13.
'We hope our lawsuits and others like them serve as a wake-up call to government, as well as private agencies, that information security has to be a top priority,' Mezibov said.
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.