Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Less Is More: The Risks of Excessive Data Collection from Mobile Devices
At virtually every organization, work is now spread out across phone calls, texts, emails, third-party messaging apps, and productivity tools on personal devices. Smartphones have, in many ways, become the nucleus of professional life. As a result, companies face the critical challenge of managing this new activity center and the vast amounts of company data flowing through it.
The U.S. Department of Justice recently declared that companies are officially responsible for all business-related data on personal devices, regardless of whether it's a company-issued device or a bring-your-own-device (BYOD). Failure to properly preserve required data for an investigation can lead to significant legal trouble and nine-figure fines. In their rush to comply, however, many companies and their legal teams are overcorrecting by over-collecting data, exposing themselves to even more risks.
Double-Sided Privacy Concerns
To meet requirements for legal hold, corporate compliance, and internal investigations, organizations must extract company data off personal devices. For employees, however, mobile phones are not just an activity center for work, but also for their daily lives. Mixed in with all that company data is a trove of sensitive personal information — photos, medical records, private messages, passwords, and more. Consequently, when companies scrape employee phones, they risk invading personal privacy.
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.