Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Navigating Custody and Control: Ownership of Smartphone Data and Enforcement of Usage Policies
Today, there are over 6.92 billion smartphone users in the world, 280.54 million of whom are in the US. Nearly 100% of adults use smartphones every day, and not just to communicate with their family and friends. They are also using smartphones in their professional lives, to interact with customers, vendors, and colleagues in a business context. And why not? Nearly every work-related platform can be routed through a single device: email, calls, Slack, Zoom, WhatsApp, productivity tools, and so on. Smartphones offer a streamlined hub for employees to do their jobs, from anywhere — so it's hardly surprising they are the preferred method of communication.
And why wouldn't companies let work trickle over into these devices? After all, smartphones unlock welcome efficiencies and productivity boosts, since work can continue outside of the office. And until very recently, employers have had little incentive to stop it; US law has been slow to catch up to modern communication practices, particularly when it comes to managing business-related data on personal devices and ephemeral apps (like WhatsApp). In investigations and legal proceedings involving businesses, electronic evidence has largely been limited to phone calls, emails, internal messaging platforms, and other more typical work surfaces.
Now, however, new regulations from the DOJ around the ownership and governance of company data on personal devices are catching up to the way the world actually works. It's going to make companies' lives a lot harder — and for precisely the same reason that smartphones have made their lives a lot easier.
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.