Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Privacy Issues of Contact Tracing
As more and more businesses throughout the state resume operations after the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown, they face a continuing concern about the virus from customers, employees and vendors who come to their facilities. Many organizations have instituted temperature checks and inquire about symptoms, out-of-state travel, and other issues in an attempt to weed out individuals who might be ill and contagious. State and federal authorities have put forth a variety of guidelines explaining how companies can properly and fairly institute these procedures.
Other steps, most notably masks and social distancing, also can help tamp down transmission of the virus. But one of the most powerful tools available to fight COVID-19 is known as "contact tracing," which has long been used to limit the spread of everything from tuberculosis and measles to HIV and Ebola.
Companies considering whether to suggest, or even to require, contact tracing for employees or others must consider a host of legal issues, including privacy. This article describes contact tracing, focusing on how technology has made it a more powerful weapon against viruses and diseases than ever before. Then, after discussing how privacy concerns are implicated, it will review a bill passed by the New York State legislature with respect to the confidentiality of contact tracing information of individuals who have contracted the virus or who have come in contact with another person with a confirmed or probable diagnosis.
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.