Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Developments of Note
California Governor Signs Online Privacy Protection Act
On Oct. 11, then-Gov. Gray Davis signed California A.B. 68, the Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (Online Privacy Act). The Online Privacy Act requires that the collection of personally identifiable information from California residents through a Web site or online service for commercial purposes be done pursuant to a conspicuously posted privacy policy. The privacy policy must identify the categories of personally identifiable information collected about individuals, and must identify the types of third parties with whom the data may be shared. Additionally, if the operator of the site or service maintains a process for individuals to view and request changes to such data, then the policy must provide a description of that process. Finally, the policy must describe the process by which the operator will notify consumers of material changes to such privacy policy.
An operator will be in violation of this law if it fails to post its privacy policy in accordance with the law within 30 days after being notified of noncompliance, or if it fails to comply with its privacy policy, either knowingly and willfully, or negligently and materially.
The Online Privacy Act will be effective on July 1, 2004.
Julian S. Millstein Edward A. Pisacreta Jeffrey D. Neuburger
California Governor Signs Online Privacy Protection Act
On Oct. 11, then-Gov. Gray Davis signed California A.B. 68, the Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (Online Privacy Act). The Online Privacy Act requires that the collection of personally identifiable information from California residents through a Web site or online service for commercial purposes be done pursuant to a conspicuously posted privacy policy. The privacy policy must identify the categories of personally identifiable information collected about individuals, and must identify the types of third parties with whom the data may be shared. Additionally, if the operator of the site or service maintains a process for individuals to view and request changes to such data, then the policy must provide a description of that process. Finally, the policy must describe the process by which the operator will notify consumers of material changes to such privacy policy.
An operator will be in violation of this law if it fails to post its privacy policy in accordance with the law within 30 days after being notified of noncompliance, or if it fails to comply with its privacy policy, either knowingly and willfully, or negligently and materially.
The Online Privacy Act will be effective on July 1, 2004.
Julian S. Millstein Edward A. Pisacreta Jeffrey D. Neuburger
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?