Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Biometrics and the Fifth Amendment: A New Frontier
In recent years, new questions have arisen regarding privacy and the scope of certain constitutional protections, stemming from the dramatic increase of use of electronic devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and laptop computers, to conduct business. The Government's interest in accessing such devices is increasing and unsurprising: electronic devices often contain a goldmine of communications of interest to law enforcement, including text messages, email, and social networking applications. Additionally, some of the most frequently used "apps" store highly sensitive data, including financial records, health records, photographs, and evidence of internet activity, just to name a few.
When used for work, mobile devices routinely contain employers' proprietary and confidential data. The struggle between Government requests for access to such data and constitutional protections — including the Government's ability to compel the turnover of biometric "keys" to unlock mobile devices — create areas of concern for employers. How the protections of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable seizures and the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination will apply to information stored on their employees' personal and business mobile devices is starting to unfold.
The Legal Landscape Surrounding Biometrics Continues to Evolve
Apple began the smartphone era with the release of the iPhone in June 2007. See, Stephen Silver, "Apple Details History of App Store on its 10th Anniversary," Appleinsider (Jul 5, 2018). Currently, new apps — with new methods of tracking and storing users' personal data — are constantly released and the amount of information stored on mobile devices is rapidly increasing. To protect the vast quantity of sensitive data stored on mobile devices, mechanisms to secure devices have also rapidly progressed since smartphones were first introduced.
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.