Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b>Online Exclusive:</b> Cost of Privacy Breaches Rises in 2006
Analysis of 31 major corporate privacy breaches this year finds that the average cost to a company has surged to $182 per compromised record, an increase of 31% over 2005. The study was conducted by the Ponemon Institute on behalf of PGP Corporation and Vontu, Inc., two privacy technology firms.
The study takes a comprehensive look at the financial consequences of data breaches involving consumers' personally identifiable information, including legal, investigative, and administrative expenses, stock performance, customer defections, opportunity loss, reputation management, and costs associated with customer support such as information hotlines and credit monitoring subscriptions.
'The burdens companies must bear as a result of a data breach are significant, making a strong case for more strategic investments in preventative measures such as encryption and data loss prevention,' said Dr. Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of The Ponemon Institute.
Andrew Krcik, vice president of marketing for PGP Corp., added that 72% of respondents indicated that 'ineffective protection of electronic information' was the primary cause of their breach.
Analysis of 31 major corporate privacy breaches this year finds that the average cost to a company has surged to $182 per compromised record, an increase of 31% over 2005. The study was conducted by the Ponemon Institute on behalf of PGP Corporation and Vontu, Inc., two privacy technology firms.
The study takes a comprehensive look at the financial consequences of data breaches involving consumers' personally identifiable information, including legal, investigative, and administrative expenses, stock performance, customer defections, opportunity loss, reputation management, and costs associated with customer support such as information hotlines and credit monitoring subscriptions.
'The burdens companies must bear as a result of a data breach are significant, making a strong case for more strategic investments in preventative measures such as encryption and data loss prevention,' said Dr. Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of The Ponemon Institute.
Andrew Krcik, vice president of marketing for PGP Corp., added that 72% of respondents indicated that 'ineffective protection of electronic information' was the primary cause of their breach.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?