Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Myth of the Secure Cloud
In 2014, now a decade ago in cyber time, I interviewed TecSec CEO and security specialist, Jay Wack. I asked about the security of the cloud, which at the time was starting to transform the storage of electronic information. “There's really no such thing as the cloud,” Mr. Wack told me, “there are only other people's computers.” I was not entirely surprised by his answer. He had a snappy way of coming to conclusions. In this case I said, “Oh, something like time-sharing in the old days.” This may have been true at first; but it is now worth some investigation if the present threat environment today demands a secure cloud. Even then, Jay Wack warned: “You cannot secure the network, only the data.”
The Need for Encryption
Concerns definitely were awakening in 2014. An article from Techcrunch by Ted Schlein entitled, “The Five Tough Truths of Cybersecurity,” is a vision of what we are seeing today. The imperative is to protect your data. Second-guessing the hackers is not a useful trade for most people with ordinary lives. You need to encrypt data all the way to the browser, and the browser itself has to be 100% authenticated. Companies needed to work on solving this end-to-end encryption problem, forcing hackers to face a new challenge: they can steal the data, but they would not be able to read it. Writing about the security of the cloud in PC World in 2014, Sarah Jacobsson Purewal compared the potentially safe and secure cloud storage providers with those that were not. See, “Loaded and Locked.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.