Category Archives: Cybersecurity

Mobile Device Security Policies for Employers – Small and Large

by Christina Frangiosa

As a business owner, perhaps you have seen articles about setting ground rules for BYOD (a.k.a. employees bringing their own devices to work to use for work purposes). Placing restrictions on access to Company information, however, should not be limited only to those BYOD devices. Instead, if the Company issues Company-owned devices to employees for use on Company systems, similar ground rules should be put in place to set expectations and provide the backdrop for any disciplinary action that may be needed later if an employee misuses Company information or loses an unsecured device.

Here are some questions to keep in mind as you develop policies for Company-owned devices issued to employees: Continue reading …

Recent Presentations and Articles

by Christina Frangiosa

More articles on IP and privacy issues will be posted here soon, but in the meantime, here are several recent articles that have published in other media:

  • Participated in a panel discussion on Shutting Down Rogue Websites:  International and Domestic Solutions, before the ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law’s 29th Annual IP Conference, on April 3, 2014.  An article previewing the session was published by our law student reporter, Anna Oakes, who live-tweeted during the presentation (in accordance with the law student reporter program).  I re-tweeted relevant posts about our session that she and other law student reporters tweeted (see @PaTmLawyer).   An article and presentation slides were published in connection with this session, but they are only available to meeting attendees.
  • Interviewed by Smart Business Magazine, How to protect data security and customers’ trust, published on March 31, 2014.  This article briefly describes ways that companies can begin to plan ahead for potential breaches so that their response(s) to breaches can be carefully considered and (hopefully) well-executed.

In addition, on May 9, I will be presenting during the DRI’s Intellectual Property Litigation Seminar on the ability to recover attorney fees in copyright and trademark cases.  The article and presentation slides developed on this topic will be available to meeting attendees.

Following these presentations, more blog posts will begin to appear again.  What can I say?  It’s been a busy spring.

Stay tuned – more soon.

Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Tomorrow on IPEC Oversight

by Christina Frangiosa


The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing tomorrow entitled, “Oversight of Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Efforts” beginning at 10:00am in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The witness list includes: 

  • The Honorable Victoria A. Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Office of Management and Budget
     
  • Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,U.S. Department of Justice
     
  • Gordon M. Snow, Assistant Director, Cyber Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation
     
  • Allen Gina, Assistant Commissioner, Office of International Trade, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
     
  • Erik Barnett, Assistant Deputy Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

The session is scheduled to be webcast, with a link to the broadcast available in the Committee’s hearing notice.

New Law in Utah Prohibits Certain Internet Crimes

by Christina Frangiosa

On March 26, 2010, the governor of Utah signed into law the Utah E-Commerce Integrity Act (S.B. 26), which prohibits certain Internet-related conduct, including phishing, pharming, spyware and cybersquatting that involves “a computer, software, or an advertisement located in, sent to, or displayed in” Utah. (Legislative history of the bill, and alternate text versions can be found here.)

Essentially, the bill provides the following:

  • Prohibits the facilitation of “certain types of fraud and injury through use of electronic communications;”
  • “Allows for the removal of domain names and online content by an Internet registrar or [ISP] under certain circumstances;”
  • “Forbids the use of various types of software, commonly called spyware, if used for certain purposes;”
  • “Provides exceptions from spyware provisions for various types of communications and interactions, including authorized diagnostics;”
  • “Prohibits the registration of domain names under certain circumstances, commonly referred to as cybersquatting;” and
  • “Provides civil penalties for a violation of cybersquatting provisions”.

It also prohibits the passage of contrary laws by subdivisions of the state and makes other technical changes.

Key among the provisions are definitions of what activities constitute phishing, pharming, spyware and cybersquatting. Notably, the statute only applies to activities that occur after July 1, 2010 (although for cybersquatting and infringement, the effective date is May 11, 2010).

Any ISP that is “adversely affected by the violation”; “an owner of a web page, computer server or trademark that is used without authorization by the violation;” or 3) the attorney general may file suit to recover damages for phishing or pharming activities. Either actual damages or “a civil penalty not to exceed $150,000” per violation can be awarded.

In the case of spyware, not only are the ISP, attorney general and trademark owner whose mark was used to deceive others able to file suit, but the owner of “a software company that expends resources in good faith assisting authorized users harmed by a violation” of this provision can also sue. The damages awarded in these instances can be actual and liquidated damages of between $1,000 and $1,00,000 as well as attorneys fees and costs. There are certain exceptions to the damages thresholds, depending on the circumstances.

The cybersquatting provisions are structured similarly to the AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 USC § 1125(d)), and permit the transfer of an affected domain name in the case of a successful judgment against the defendant, but also differ in certain ways from the federal provisions. Specifically, they allow personal names to be included in the scope of protection under the act and exempt domain name registrars from legal action except in cases of bad faith or reckless disregard. There are other differences as well, but these were the most obvious.

FTC Releases its Staff Report on its 2/09 Fraud Forum

by Christina Frangiosa

On December 29, 2009, the Federal Trade Commission’s Division of Marketing Practices released its “Staff Report on the [FTC]’s Fraud Forum.” See Report. The report analyzes the recommendations and conclusions made during the FTC’s February 2009 meeting on the topic of preventing consumer fraud. See 12/29/09 Press Release.

The report analyzes the types of scam artists, some of the common scams that have been (at least marginally) successful, the types of victims, reasons why these crimes might be unreported or underreported, and upcoming challenges such as payment system frauds or phishing, spoofing and keystroke logging. The report also makes several proposals for improving the FTC’s anti-fraud program.