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> AOL Search Data Exposure Renews Interest in Data Warehousing Law
One of the U.S. House's leaders on telecommunications issues, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), recently renewed his effort to strengthen consumer privacy in the wake of AOL's sharing of customers' online data. Markey issued a call for the House to move forward on his data warehousing bill, H.R. 4731, the Eliminate Warehousing of Consumer Internet Data Act. The bill would require Internet companies to destroy obsolete electronic data, particularly data that could be used to individually identify consumers, 'when it is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected or any other legitimate business pursuit,' or could be subject to a court order. The bill would instruct the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce new standards for the maintenance and destruction of data, such as defining when information becomes 'obsolete.'
'In this digital information age, the personal data we hand over to dozens of Web sites are the keys which unlock the personal lives and valuable possessions of millions of Americans,' Markey said in a prepared statement. 'This stored-up data about consumers' Internet use should not be needlessly kept in perpetuity, inviting data thieves or fraudsters, or disclosure through judicial fishing expeditions.'
Since February, Markey's bill has been in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. No other House members have said that they will make the bill a priority matter.
Among his other telecom and Internet legislative interests, Markey is well known on Capitol Hill for his advocacy of 'net neutrality,' which would regulate access to and pricing of Internet connections to require that phone and cable companies not favor certain access providers over others. Markey co-authored HR 5252 to seek to write net neutrality into law, but it was defeated in June. Markey also is author of H.R. 1078, 'The Social Security Number Protection Act,' which would protect consumers from the abuse of the purchase and sale of Social Security numbers.
One of the U.S. House's leaders on telecommunications issues, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), recently renewed his effort to strengthen consumer privacy in the wake of AOL's sharing of customers' online data. Markey issued a call for the House to move forward on his data warehousing bill, H.R. 4731, the Eliminate Warehousing of Consumer Internet Data Act. The bill would require Internet companies to destroy obsolete electronic data, particularly data that could be used to individually identify consumers, 'when it is no longer necessary for the purpose for which it was collected or any other legitimate business pursuit,' or could be subject to a court order. The bill would instruct the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce new standards for the maintenance and destruction of data, such as defining when information becomes 'obsolete.'
'In this digital information age, the personal data we hand over to dozens of Web sites are the keys which unlock the personal lives and valuable possessions of millions of Americans,' Markey said in a prepared statement. 'This stored-up data about consumers' Internet use should not be needlessly kept in perpetuity, inviting data thieves or fraudsters, or disclosure through judicial fishing expeditions.'
Since February, Markey's bill has been in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection. No other House members have said that they will make the bill a priority matter.
Among his other telecom and Internet legislative interests, Markey is well known on Capitol Hill for his advocacy of 'net neutrality,' which would regulate access to and pricing of Internet connections to require that phone and cable companies not favor certain access providers over others. Markey co-authored HR 5252 to seek to write net neutrality into law, but it was defeated in June. Markey also is author of H.R. 1078, 'The Social Security Number Protection Act,' which would protect consumers from the abuse of the purchase and sale of Social Security numbers.
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.