RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CYBERSECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY

According to the amendment, if "the legitimate needs of law enforcement" require an extension, an additional forty-five days may be taken for supplying notification.23 F. New Mexico New Mexico enacted its own Data Breach Notification Act on April 16, 2017, thereby becoming the forty-eighth...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Tort trial & insurance practice law journal 2018-01, Vol.53 (2), p.291-314
Hauptverfasser: Wear, Justin D., Flowers, Robert, Black, Kyle D., Godfrey, Lauren D., Anderson, Roberta D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 314
container_issue 2
container_start_page 291
container_title Tort trial & insurance practice law journal
container_volume 53
creator Wear, Justin D.
Flowers, Robert
Black, Kyle D.
Godfrey, Lauren D.
Anderson, Roberta D.
description According to the amendment, if "the legitimate needs of law enforcement" require an extension, an additional forty-five days may be taken for supplying notification.23 F. New Mexico New Mexico enacted its own Data Breach Notification Act on April 16, 2017, thereby becoming the forty-eighth state to require notification to consumers following a data breach.24 The Data Breach Notification Act bears similarities to many other state breach notification statutes. Furthermore, under the amended statute, entities must notify the Delaware Attorney General if more than five hundred res idents are notified. [...]the notification to the attorney general must be made no later than when state residents are notified. "175 The court concluded that the "plain meaning of the policy language," and the uniform interpretations across jurisdictions, dictate that the insured's loss was not covered under the computerfraud provision. [...]the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in favor of GAIC. "199 The court noted that there was no infiltration or hacking of the insured's computer system, and thus no coverage under the computer fraud insur ing agreement.200 In a footnote, the court distinguished the holding in Medidata Solutions, noting that the language in the computer-fraud provision at issue was different.201 In particular, the court explained that the policy in Medidata did not have language requiring the "direct loss" to be "directly caused by the Computer Fraud." [...]the court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2111598744</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>27172756</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>27172756</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j504-38cb0c848c4a0c0af9c462e56aa37a89ec98c6b8489e981204bdc207dfad53743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjU1LwzAAhoM4cG7-BCHguZDPJjnWNLpC7UZXhz2VNG3Bonam28F_b2Se3ufw8LxXYIkVoxHG8u06MA9MCWU34HaeR4QoFootAS-NNkUFU3Mw-Xb3EngPswLq-tGUe6Nfy6yqYVKkME2qBO7K7JDoeg0Wg_2Y-7v_XYHqyVR6E-Xb50wneTRyxCIqXYucZNIxixyyg3IsJj2PraXCStU7JV3cBkH1SmKCWNs5gkQ32I5TwegKPFyyRz99n_v51IzT2X-Fx4ZgjLmSgv1Z9xdrnE-Tb47-_dP6n4YILIjgMf0F9TxGNA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2111598744</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CYBERSECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Wear, Justin D. ; Flowers, Robert ; Black, Kyle D. ; Godfrey, Lauren D. ; Anderson, Roberta D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Wear, Justin D. ; Flowers, Robert ; Black, Kyle D. ; Godfrey, Lauren D. ; Anderson, Roberta D.</creatorcontrib><description>According to the amendment, if "the legitimate needs of law enforcement" require an extension, an additional forty-five days may be taken for supplying notification.23 F. New Mexico New Mexico enacted its own Data Breach Notification Act on April 16, 2017, thereby becoming the forty-eighth state to require notification to consumers following a data breach.24 The Data Breach Notification Act bears similarities to many other state breach notification statutes. Furthermore, under the amended statute, entities must notify the Delaware Attorney General if more than five hundred res idents are notified. [...]the notification to the attorney general must be made no later than when state residents are notified. "175 The court concluded that the "plain meaning of the policy language," and the uniform interpretations across jurisdictions, dictate that the insured's loss was not covered under the computerfraud provision. [...]the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in favor of GAIC. "199 The court noted that there was no infiltration or hacking of the insured's computer system, and thus no coverage under the computer fraud insur ing agreement.200 In a footnote, the court distinguished the holding in Medidata Solutions, noting that the language in the computer-fraud provision at issue was different.201 In particular, the court explained that the policy in Medidata did not have language requiring the "direct loss" to be "directly caused by the Computer Fraud." [...]the court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1543-3234</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1943-118X</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: American Bar Association</publisher><subject>Attorneys general ; Bills ; Cybersecurity ; Federal court decisions ; Insurance commissioners ; REAL ID Act 2005-US</subject><ispartof>Tort trial &amp; insurance practice law journal, 2018-01, Vol.53 (2), p.291-314</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Bar Association Winter 2018</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27172756$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27172756$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wear, Justin D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flowers, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Black, Kyle D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Godfrey, Lauren D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Roberta D.</creatorcontrib><title>RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CYBERSECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY</title><title>Tort trial &amp; insurance practice law journal</title><description>According to the amendment, if "the legitimate needs of law enforcement" require an extension, an additional forty-five days may be taken for supplying notification.23 F. New Mexico New Mexico enacted its own Data Breach Notification Act on April 16, 2017, thereby becoming the forty-eighth state to require notification to consumers following a data breach.24 The Data Breach Notification Act bears similarities to many other state breach notification statutes. Furthermore, under the amended statute, entities must notify the Delaware Attorney General if more than five hundred res idents are notified. [...]the notification to the attorney general must be made no later than when state residents are notified. "175 The court concluded that the "plain meaning of the policy language," and the uniform interpretations across jurisdictions, dictate that the insured's loss was not covered under the computerfraud provision. [...]the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in favor of GAIC. "199 The court noted that there was no infiltration or hacking of the insured's computer system, and thus no coverage under the computer fraud insur ing agreement.200 In a footnote, the court distinguished the holding in Medidata Solutions, noting that the language in the computer-fraud provision at issue was different.201 In particular, the court explained that the policy in Medidata did not have language requiring the "direct loss" to be "directly caused by the Computer Fraud." [...]the court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment.</description><subject>Attorneys general</subject><subject>Bills</subject><subject>Cybersecurity</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Insurance commissioners</subject><subject>REAL ID Act 2005-US</subject><issn>1543-3234</issn><issn>1943-118X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotjU1LwzAAhoM4cG7-BCHguZDPJjnWNLpC7UZXhz2VNG3Bonam28F_b2Se3ufw8LxXYIkVoxHG8u06MA9MCWU34HaeR4QoFootAS-NNkUFU3Mw-Xb3EngPswLq-tGUe6Nfy6yqYVKkME2qBO7K7JDoeg0Wg_2Y-7v_XYHqyVR6E-Xb50wneTRyxCIqXYucZNIxixyyg3IsJj2PraXCStU7JV3cBkH1SmKCWNs5gkQ32I5TwegKPFyyRz99n_v51IzT2X-Fx4ZgjLmSgv1Z9xdrnE-Tb47-_dP6n4YILIjgMf0F9TxGNA</recordid><startdate>20180101</startdate><enddate>20180101</enddate><creator>Wear, Justin D.</creator><creator>Flowers, Robert</creator><creator>Black, Kyle D.</creator><creator>Godfrey, Lauren D.</creator><creator>Anderson, Roberta D.</creator><general>American Bar Association</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180101</creationdate><title>RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CYBERSECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY</title><author>Wear, Justin D. ; Flowers, Robert ; Black, Kyle D. ; Godfrey, Lauren D. ; Anderson, Roberta D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j504-38cb0c848c4a0c0af9c462e56aa37a89ec98c6b8489e981204bdc207dfad53743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Attorneys general</topic><topic>Bills</topic><topic>Cybersecurity</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Insurance commissioners</topic><topic>REAL ID Act 2005-US</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wear, Justin D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Flowers, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Black, Kyle D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Godfrey, Lauren D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anderson, Roberta D.</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Tort trial &amp; insurance practice law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wear, Justin D.</au><au>Flowers, Robert</au><au>Black, Kyle D.</au><au>Godfrey, Lauren D.</au><au>Anderson, Roberta D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CYBERSECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY</atitle><jtitle>Tort trial &amp; insurance practice law journal</jtitle><date>2018-01-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>291</spage><epage>314</epage><pages>291-314</pages><issn>1543-3234</issn><eissn>1943-118X</eissn><abstract>According to the amendment, if "the legitimate needs of law enforcement" require an extension, an additional forty-five days may be taken for supplying notification.23 F. New Mexico New Mexico enacted its own Data Breach Notification Act on April 16, 2017, thereby becoming the forty-eighth state to require notification to consumers following a data breach.24 The Data Breach Notification Act bears similarities to many other state breach notification statutes. Furthermore, under the amended statute, entities must notify the Delaware Attorney General if more than five hundred res idents are notified. [...]the notification to the attorney general must be made no later than when state residents are notified. "175 The court concluded that the "plain meaning of the policy language," and the uniform interpretations across jurisdictions, dictate that the insured's loss was not covered under the computerfraud provision. [...]the Fifth Circuit vacated the judgment of the trial court and rendered judgment in favor of GAIC. "199 The court noted that there was no infiltration or hacking of the insured's computer system, and thus no coverage under the computer fraud insur ing agreement.200 In a footnote, the court distinguished the holding in Medidata Solutions, noting that the language in the computer-fraud provision at issue was different.201 In particular, the court explained that the policy in Medidata did not have language requiring the "direct loss" to be "directly caused by the Computer Fraud." [...]the court granted the insurer's motion for summary judgment.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>American Bar Association</pub><tpages>24</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1543-3234
ispartof Tort trial & insurance practice law journal, 2018-01, Vol.53 (2), p.291-314
issn 1543-3234
1943-118X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2111598744
source Jstor Complete Legacy; HeinOnline Law Journal Library
subjects Attorneys general
Bills
Cybersecurity
Federal court decisions
Insurance commissioners
REAL ID Act 2005-US
title RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN CYBERSECURITY AND DATA PRIVACY
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T16%3A06%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=RECENT%20DEVELOPMENTS%20IN%20CYBERSECURITY%20AND%20DATA%20PRIVACY&rft.jtitle=Tort%20trial%20&%20insurance%20practice%20law%20journal&rft.au=Wear,%20Justin%20D.&rft.date=2018-01-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=291&rft.epage=314&rft.pages=291-314&rft.issn=1543-3234&rft.eissn=1943-118X&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E27172756%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2111598744&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=27172756&rfr_iscdi=true