Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Plan to Protect Cybersecurity for Employees Before Day One
Hiring new employees is a critical function of doing business, and the onboarding process transcends industry, company size, and physical location. Organizations often need new talent to capture opportunity, optimize productivity, expand into new sectors, build products, and strengthen existing services. However, personnel transitions are equal opportunities for threat actors, and in some cases criminals, to exploit the hiring and onboarding process for the purposes of gaining unauthorized access to a valuable target. With new employees come new risks; from aspiring insider threats that intend to join a target to extract sensitive information, to insecure processes being exploited due to too much trust being placed in candidates and new hires.
It's Never Too Early: Safeguarding the Interview Process
For today's organizations, the reality is that the interview process has become a well-oiled machine. Companies set up profiles and job advertisements on job-search sites to elicit jobseekers to apply. Hiring managers field an influx of resumes and CVs and must decide who they will hire.
During this process, potential candidates are often required to speak to executives, managers, and team members associated with the position of interest. Who has not been to a job interview where a current employee overshares plans, capabilities, frustrations, or financial outlook? For a criminal threat actor who is an adept social engineer, a job interview is a golden opportunity to extract sensitive information about the target, its employees, and other valuable information. This can be particularly useful information for cyber criminals who may leverage the details in phishing or vishing campaigns to get one step closer to the organization's crown jewels.
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.