Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The 'Soft Underbelly' of Cybersecurity Meets Legal Ethics
Legal departments for business organizations rate cybersecurity, regulation and ethics compliance among their chief concerns, and they are well aware of surveys showing law firms to be the “soft underbelly” of business security due to weakness of their cybersecurity. Lawyers and law firms are often behind trends but very good at playing catch-up. In the area of cybersecurity, the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct can help serve as a guide.
The Model Rules are drafted by and for lawyers and, yes, they include lots of flexibility (read, wiggle room) with expressions of “reasonableness.” But these rules express a commitment to improve awareness and competence in technology usage.
Technology awareness includes such issues as encryption and other safeguards of various Internet services and many more. Lawyers and law firms must ask and answer several questions for their own operations and for effectively advising clients. What does a candidate service provider do by way of capturing and using metadata and content it acquires through the service? Guard it securely? Sell it to others? With filtered privacy information? Mine it to create more profits? What are its duties under its Terms of Service and governing law to notify subscribers of data usage, breach, or loss of stored data? How does the provider accept new instructions to delete or correct data relating to the subscriber? What are its encryption, anti-hacking, anti-theft measures? How and when does it give access to federal and state government officials?
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.