Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Is Your Computer Leasing Company Responsible for Data Security?
Picture this scenario: You are the owner of a small to mid-sized business and have decided that it is in your best interest to lease your company's computer equipment. This may be because prudent financial planning dictates a lease versus buy decision; or you may want to be able to run the most current, up-to-date applications and the short time span of a computer lease allows you to do so. Whatever the case, when you make this decision, you have just assumed a very important responsibility ' one that should not be taken lightly. You have just become personally responsible for the security of your own and your clients' personal data. It is your responsibility to personally safeguard the social security numbers, banking information, healthcare data, credit information, or anything else that could lead to catastrophic consequences if found in the wrong hands.
Of course, you know it is in your best interest to protect the personal information of your customers [as well as your own business ' marketing, business development plans, proprietary information, etc.] However, the company you're leasing your computer from most likely isn't, nor has to be, as concerned as you are. While ideally the computer leasing company would employ a secure method to purge the computer of any personal information found on the hard drive when it is returned, many companies are not taking these proper measures to do so. Much to the surprise of anyone who doesn't read the terms of the lease very carefully, the language of most standard computer lease agreements would suggest that the entity leasing the computer is responsible for removing any personal or proprietary information from the hard drive ' and merely dragging and dropping in the trash can or deleting the files DOES NOT accomplish this task. As any computer expert will tell you, information that has been deleted can still be found on the machine's hard drive.
As leasing companies typically resell the returned equipment back into the international marketplace, if not properly and thoroughly audited and erased (not just reformatted), they could be exposing tremendous risk to corporations and consumers since the hard drive data can be easily reconstructed with readily available software from the Internet. Again, sensitive hard drive data that could otherwise be reconstructed includes bank account information, social security numbers, health records, customer records and the like. That is why it's your responsibility to employ a tool that provides a tested and guaranteed means to purge your leased equipment of both yours and your customers' personal information.
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.
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.
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?