Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
“Not if, but when.” These simple words are enough to keep privacy officers, corporate counsel, compliance officers and IT managers up at night when faced with the reality that their network will at some point be breached. This is no surprise given the spate of corporate breaches and unauthorized network intrusions reported in recent years, as well as the costs, reputational harm and investigations and lawsuits that follow in their wake. While there are no silver bullets to stop breaches from occurring, understanding and following legal actions brought by regulatory agencies and heeding security guidance they issue can go a long way in preventing security lapses and unauthorized attacks.
There is no omnibus federal law that prescribes the level of security that companies must use to protect consumer information. Instead, Congress has identified certain categories of sensitive data that warrant regulation, such as health and financial information, and online information collected from children under 13, resulting in the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB Act), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FRCA), and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), respectively.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.