Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Identity Theft
By now, conducting financial and business transactions on line on 'secure' sites has become a commonplace convenience. But, as we are reminded from time to time, it is not entirely safe to entrust confidential personal information to others. Just such a reminder occurred in late May 2006, when the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs disclosed that the confidential personal information of about 26.5 million people, including their Social Security numbers, had been stolen when a Virginia analyst took data home and his home was burglarized. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a non-profit organization, the theft brought the number of identities compromised since 2005 to over 80 million. Indeed, according to a Wall Street Journal article prompted by the VA incident, identity theft has become such a concern for employers, both in terms of potential liability and lost productivity, that some are providing a new employee benefit: 'identity theft resolution services,' ie, someone to deal with the employees' legal and credit problems when a theft occurs.
What are the legal liabilities a company faces when someone ' an employee or outsider ' breaches the company's security and accesses employee or customer confidential information? More than half the states have legislation addressing this problem. This article focuses on federal statutes that expose companies to potential civil and criminal liability for failing to take adequate steps to prevent the theft.
The Federal Trade Commission Act
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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.