Today, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released guidance to help state and local jurisdictions and the private sector identify and manage their essential workforce while responding to coronavirus (COVID-19). The White House Coronavirus Guidelines direct that Critical Infrastructure Industry, as defined by the Department of Homeland Security, has a special responsibility to maintain
On January 31, 2020, the Trump administration issued an executive order cracking down on U.S. businesses that import directly or facilitate the import of counterfeit or pirated goods, illegal narcotics and other contraband. The order, entitled “Ensuring Safe & Lawful E-Commerce for US Consumers, Business, Government Supply Chains and Intellectual Property Rights,” directs…
This week it was reported that Indian police arrested four people accused of leaking a pre-release episode of the blockbuster HBO show, “Game of Thrones.” The leak is supposedly the result of employees from a Mumbai-based company that stores and processes the series for the Indian streaming website Hotstar.
These arrests—which appear unrelated to the recent and well-publicized corporate hack of HBO—underscore the challenges that businesses operating around the world face in safeguarding their intellectual property in the supply chain. Many corporations rely on third party vendors to deliver their business services and products—in this instance television content—around the world. Yet, the security capabilities of these vendors varies widely, which is why companies can and should take key steps to protect their sensitive information as they share it with these third parties.
The two primary threats that third party vendors pose to companies are: (1) ensuring strong cybersecurity protections to mitigate the chance of a damaging hack; and (2) minimizing the chance of theft of sensitive business information by insiders with access. To address these concerns, companies should consider the following.
Can U.S. law enforcement reach data stored oversees by using a warrant under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.? Until the Supreme Court decides the issue, which may happen next term, the answer is: it depends where the government applied for the warrant.
Over the last few years, U.S.-based technology companies have been increasingly resisting warrants under the Stored Communications Act for data those companies store oversees. These warrants, they claim, represent an extraterritorial application of the law, which Congress has never permitted.
Traditionally, if the government has probable cause to believe that a person’s email account contains evidence of a crime, and a federal magistrate judge agrees, a warrant would issue directing the email service provider to turn over those emails to the government. But data is increasingly stored in the “cloud.” And, as it turns out, the “cloud” consists of server farms located all over the world. Companies like Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple now host large quantities of data abroad, raising complicated jurisdictional questions.