When it comes to Big Data — combing large datasets to unearth previously undiscoverable patterns in consumer behavior — the line between what’s permissible and what’s proper can be a fine one.
Details and the actual text of the Privacy Shield agreement between the EU and U.S. were not immediately available, but regulators on both sides have confirmed that the parties have reached an agreement in principle that will allow for the continuation of an important mechanism for transatlantic data transfers outside of binding corporate rules and model contractual clause arrangements.
Knowledge management software solutions tailored to the legal profession are becoming more common and lawyers more receptive to them. In addition, e-discovery capabilities are moving out of the IT department and into the user domain, as they become simpler to use and more collaborative.
Cloud or SaaS aren’t monolithic options; they are models under which a variety of configurations of services and computing options are provided. The articulation and configuration of those options within the profession is still being determined. There is no standard for a “legal cloud” the way we might see from our peers in healthcare or financial services.
The European Commission and the United States have agreed on a new framework for transatlantic data flows: the EU-US Privacy Shield.
Times have changed and even former hold-outs in regulated industries have warmed to cloud technology. Last year, US Chief Information Officer Tony Scott called for organizations to “get to the cloud as fast as [they] can” for better security, and a recent survey (registration required) from the Cloud Security Alliance confirmed this attitude among rank and file IT professionals, with 64.9% of respondents describing cloud software as a service as secure or more secure than on-premises software.
As has so often been the case with the Internet, our legal frameworks are playing catch up with runaway technology. Gartner estimates there will be up to 6.4 billion Internet of Things devices installed by 2020, the vast majority of which will be in the homes, vehicles or worn on the bodies of consumers. Despite this enormous market, there’s currently very little specific legislation covering the IoT.
OmniVere LLC, a global services firm responding to data risk management challenges, today announced that it has acquired Kiersted Systems LP, a leader in electronic discovery and legal technology consulting.
It is imperative that companies world-wide begin investing in security measures that will keep their customers’ data secure at the highest level of legal requirements. Residing in a country of little or no data privacy protection may soon no longer be that company’s “Safe Harbor.”
The Federal Trade Commission announced its annual revisions to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (“HSR”) jurisdictional thresholds on January 21, 2016.
In passing CISA–officially titled the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 when signed into law–the US made life for multi-national companies, or any business with customers overseas, more difficult.
In light of DOJ’s recent guidance, most companies understand that “paper” compliance programs are no longer enough to protect a company when a regulator comes knocking. Companies are under increasing pressure to demonstrate to both the Audit Committee and, if necessary, regulators, that their compliance program is operational and effective.
While employers enjoy having employees at the ready, checking in with work while away from the office could spell legal trouble to employers. The perceived efficiency and cost savings created by such easy access to work can pale in comparison to the legal ramifications and costs that allowing unregulated access to work information on remote devices can have.
Legal technology companies have taken many paths to profitability. Sadly, most never make it. However, as venture capitalists look for investment opportunities and legal services companies seek to stand out in a crowded market, look for more such investments in the coming year.
Cloud confidence is rising, with nearly 65 percent of IT leaders feeling the cloud is as secure as or more secure than on-premises software.
The confluence of powerful technology and Big Data is revolutionizing every facet of our lives, and it has transformed an institution so stodgy so as to be known as America’s Pastime. It is time for legal to embrace what it has long avoided. Leveraging data wisely can’t ensure success, but ignoring it will secure failure.
It’s a given in today’s era that e-discovery has moved to the cloud. However, not all cloud e-discovery solutions are created equal. In fact, cloud computing has become an amorphous term easily confused with true software-as-a-service (SaaS)—which offers scalability, elasticity, accessibility, security, and predictable affordability.
Federal Court Rules Internet Provider Should Not Recover Costs of Informing Clients of Motion for Customer Information
Internet service providers who are forced to provide customer information pursuant to a Norwich order should be careful to take only those steps required by the order. Courts will generally not allow companies to claim reimbursement for voluntary steps taken in response to a Norwich order.
Although they generally don’t make the headlines, there have been numerous law firm data breaches; incidents spanning from lost or stolen laptops and portable drives to long-term, deep intrusions, exposing everything in the networks.
One question that often arises in the trade secret practice is what information, if any, can be protectable as confidential information even if it does not qualify under state law as a trade secret.
The FTC unveiled a lengthy report, Big Data: A Tool for Inclusion or Exclusion? Understanding the Issues, warning companies about commercial uses of big data and the discriminatory impact it may have on low-income and underserved populations.
The law states that the company that collected the PII and/or PHI is responsible if the information is lost or stolen. Even though a company’s computer system is compromised, that company is still responsible for any lost or stolen PII and PHI.
Cyber insurance is a relatively new and still evolving form of coverage designed to address the emerging information-related risks facing today’s companies. These risks include breach of privacy, failed network security, and media liability. Unlike more traditional forms of coverage, there are no standard cyber insurance policy forms, provisions, definitions, or exclusions.
In Remijas v. Neiman Marcus, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015), the Seventh Circuit held that retailers who expose their customers to a data breach can be sued even before such consumers suffer any tangible loss.