Monthly Archives: February 2010
In LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127, (9th Cir. 2009) the employee emailed to himself competitively sensitive data so he could use it to compete against his current employer. Disagreeing with Citrin, the 9th Circuit refused to hold that an employee’s authorization to access the company computer is based on the law of agency. Instead, the court held that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act did not apply to the theft because an employee cannot act “without authorization” because his employer gave his “permission to use” the company computer. Id. at 1133. Read relevant article.
In International Airport Centers, LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 420 (7th Cir. 2006) the court held that an employee was liable under the Computer Fraud and Abuse and the employee’s “authorization to access the [company] laptop terminated, when, . . . [the employee] resolved to destroy files that incriminated himself and other files that were also the property of his employer, in violation of the duty of loyalty that agency law imposes on an employee.” Read Relevant Article.
What Is Required and How to Comply Contributed by: Melissa J. Krasnow, Dorsey & Whitney LLP The Massachusetts Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation (“MOCABR”) recently issued the final version of the Massachusetts privacy regulation (Regulation). This article provides a summary of this Regulation, which applies to each person or entity that owns or licenses personal information about a Massachusetts resident (Covered Entity) “Owns or licenses” means receives, stores, maintains, processes, or otherwise has access to personal information in connection with the provision of goods or services or in connection with employment. “Personal information” means a Massachusetts resident’s first … [ Continue reading ]
Technology poses a special risk to companies whose businesses depend on such valuable competitive data. With just a couple of mouse clicks or through the use of a thumb drive that can be slipped into a pocket, an employee can easily remove from the workplace what amounts to multiple file cabinets worth of documents. Last year, for example, I represented a client where the data at issue was worth more than $1 billion in business to the company. The employees in that case removed the data from the company by simply downloading it to several compact disks and e-mailing it … [ Continue reading ]
The civil remedy in the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, 18 U.S.C. 1961, et. seq., is not limited to the “archetypal, intimidating mobster.” Sedima SPRL v. Imrex Co. Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 498 (1985). There is no reason why RICO cannot apply to data thieves. RICO provides a significant remedial advantage over traditional remedies such as the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030(g), which directly outlaws the theft of data, and, like RICO, provides for a civil remedy. The CFAA, however, is limited to compensatory damages, whereas RICO provides for treble damages and attorney … [ Continue reading ]
Time to review corporate computer policies The National Law Journal February 1, 2010 PDF copy of original article: View The National Law Journal