Blame Congress’ Patriot Act not the NSA or FBI

Prism-1When self-proclaimed whistle blower, Edward Snowden disclosed a PowerPoint presentation allegedly detailing the Prism computer system[1] at the heart of foreign data collection program, he set off a firestorm of debate over the role of  clandestine electronic surveillance on individuals outside the United States and the U.S. residents who communicate with them.

In the week that has followed, some clarity has emerged. First, the Prism system is not a code name for a clandestine operation, but the name of the computer system used to collect and store the data. According to the Director of National Intelligence, that computer system operates under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (50 U.S.C. § 1881a).

Section 702 provides that “the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence may authorize jointly, for a period of up to 1 year from the effective date of the authorization, the targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.” The reasonable belief focuses on the location of the target, not the threat posed by the target. Most of the other limitations emphasize that this should not be used if the purpose is to target someone inside the U.S.

Nowhere in Section 702 is there a requirement that the information is relevant to an investigation at some level – “specific articulable facts giving reason to believe,” or “reasonable suspicion.” Probable cause is likely not within the realm of possibility. The law allows and even encourages broad, general sweeping of data, which can then be analyzed for patterns and anomalies.

The Section 702 directives are the subject of quasi-judicial review. The FISA Court is comprised of 11 federal judges assigned this additional duty by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This internally appointed judicial panel has operated since 1979. In that time, according to the Wall Street Journal, it has rejected 11 applications for various surveillance requests. During that time, the number of approved surveillance requests has been in excess of 33,900 or an approval rate of  99.97 percent. Without knowing anything more, it is inconceivable that any review process with over 99 percent approvals can constitute a meaningful review.

Harvard Law Professor and former U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner highlighted the structural problem of the FISA Court.

It’s an anointment process. It’s not a selection process. But you know, it’s not boat rockers. So you have a [federal] bench which is way more conservative than before. This is a subset of that. And it’s a subset of that who are operating under privacy, confidentiality, and national security. To suggest that there is meaningful review it seems to me is an illusion.

The problem, therefore, is not a secret or rogue NSA plot but instead a widely supported provision of the Patriot Act designed to be used precisely as the NSA has been doing. It has executive, legislative and judicial support. But because it is operated by a close-knit association, the separation of powers has proven irrelevant as a limitation on its operation.

Moreover, the Patriot Act has other sections equally potent at eavesdropping on private information. As summarized by the ACLU, FISA Section 215 “allows the FBI to order any person or entity to turn over ‘any tangible things,’ so long as the FBI ‘specif[ies]’ that the order is ‘for an authorized investigation . . . to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.’” Section 215 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.)

A secret NSA phone wiretapping order was also released last week highlighting the scope of metadata collection within the U.S. under Section 215.

This FISA Court Order targeting Verizon, required Verizon on an “ongoing, daily basis” to give the NSA information on all telephone metadata in its systems. Since the Section 702 orders deal with foreign data, this Section 215 court order excluded “telephony metadata for communications wholly originating and terminating in foreign countries.” The court order explains the scope of the request:

Telephony metadata includes comprehensive communications routing information, including but not limited to session identifying information (e.g., originating and terminating telephone number, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, etc.), trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call. Telephony metadata does not include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 U.S.C. [Sec.] 2510(8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer.

Essentially this means that all of us with Verizon phones can be tracked anywhere in the U.S., our interaction with any other parties triangulated, our First Amendment rights of Association violated, and our notion of privacy eliminated. Non-Verizon subscribers likely are subject to identical orders. There is no reason to doubt that these orders are not routinely issued to track all phone and cell phone movement data.

Mary DeRosa summarizes the changes to Section 215 which led to the Verizon court order.

Previously, FISA required the FBI to present the [FISA Court] “specific articulable facts giving reason to believe” that the subject of an investigation was a “foreign power or the agent of a foreign power.” After section 215, the government is required only to assert that the records or things are sought for a foreign intelligence investigation or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, although the investigation of a United States person may not be “solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution.” There is no requirement for an evidentiary or factual showing and the judge has little discretion in reviewing an application. If the judge finds that “the application meets the requirements” of the section, he or she must issue an order as requested “or as modified.”

Neither the NSA nor the FBI are doing anything other than that approved by Congress. Indeed, were these departments found not to be using the authority granted by Congress, there would be outrage on Capitol Hill. Instead it is the law that has vastly over-extended the government’s reach into the movements and activities of the public, both domestic and foreign.

Moreover, the sweep of the law is growing broader by the day as more and more devices and technologies use remote communications to share information. While it might require a warrant to track a vehicle, the Internet enabled Pandora music player, the self-adjusting oil change settings, and the many other connected technologies are not subject to that warrant requirement. The movement of such cars will be routinely swept into the FBI’s database as part of the Section 215 orders.

The FTC has initiated a review of the ever-growing “Internet of Things,” which is to mean the “growing connectivity of consumer devices, such as cars, appliances, and medical devices.” Combine the power of the FBI and NSA to order metadata and tracking information on all digital data with the interconnectivity of medical devices, RFID-tagged products, installed devices on vehicles, and smart phone apps, a digital map emerges. Like ants in an ant-farm, every person’s digital trail will be on display before the government. Increasingly sophisticated data analytics will eventually enable the path of each individual ant to be highlighted and sorted from among the swarm.

The growing connectivity that has extended the Patriot Act’s reach into more and more aspects of our daily lives require that we revise the laws to reign in the power of government and create a meaningful, statutory right of privacy. These revelations add attention to the problem and highlight the lack of transparency over this tracking. Congress is not shocked at these revelations because they voted to create the programs and have been repeatedly brief on their use. It is the people who have been left in the dark. Given the growth of the programs and the power of the technology they employ, it is time for a more thoughtful, balanced statutory approach.


[1] Reddit.com provided the link to the 2002 New York Times article first describing what is now the Prism computer system. See http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/1g3zqz/the_roots_of_prism_a_new_york_times_article_from/.

Cyber Defense Strategies and Responsibilities for Industry Call for Papers Now Open

The Northern Kentucky Law Review and Salmon P. Chase College of Law seek submissions for the third annual Law + Informatics Symposium on February 27-28, 2014.

2014 Law + Informatics Symposium on

Cyber Defense Strategies and Responsibilities for Industry

 The focus of the conference is to provide an interdisciplinary review of issues involving business and industry responses to cyber threats from foreign governments, terrorists, and corporate espionage. The symposium will emphasize the role of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework and industries providing critical infrastructure.

The symposium is an opportunity for academics, practitioners, consultants, and students to exchange ideas and explore emerging issues cybersecurity and informatics law as it applies to corporate strategies and the obligations of business leaders. Interdisciplinary presentations are encouraged. Authors and presenters are invited to submit proposals on topics relating to the theme, such as the following:

Cyber Warfare

  • Rules of Engagement
  • Offensive and defensive approaches
  • Responses to state actors
  • Engagement of non-state actors
  • Distinguishing corporate espionage from national defense
  • Proportionality and critical infrastructure
  • Cyber diplomacy
  • Cold War footing and concerns of human rights implications

Front Lines for Industry

  • Role of regulators such as FERC
  • Legacy systems and modern threats
  • NIST guidelines
  • NIST Cybersecurity Framework
  • Engaging Dept. of Homeland Security
  • Implications on various industries (electric power,  telecommunications and transportation systems, chemical facilities)
  • Health and safety issues
Global Perspectives

  • Concepts of cyber engagement in Europe
  • Perception of Internet and social media as threat to national soverignty
  • Rules of engagement outside U.S. and NATO
  • Implications for privacy and human rights
  • Stuxnet, Duqu, Gauss, Mahdi, Flame, Wiper, and Shamoon
  • Cyber engagement in lieu of kinetic attacks or as a component of kinetic engagement

 

Corporate Governance

  • Confidentiality and disclosure obligations
  • Responsibilities of the board of directors
  • Staffing, structures and responses
  • Data protection & obligations regarding data breaches
  • Corporate duty to stop phishing and other attacks for non-critical industries
  • Investment and threat assessment
  • Litigation and third party liability

 

Other Issues

  • Executive orders and legislative process
  • Lawyer responsibility in the face of potential threats
  • Practical implications of government notices
  • Perspective on the true nature of the threat

Submissions & Important Dates: 

  • Please submit materials to Nkylrsymposium@nku.edu
  • Submission Deadline for Abstracts: September 1, 2013
  • Submission Deadline for First Draft of Manuscripts: January 1, 2014
  • Submission Deadline for Completed Articles: February 1, 2014
  • Symposium Date: February 27-28, 2014

Law Review Published Article:  The Northern Kentucky Law Review will review, edit and publish papers from the symposium in the 2014 spring symposium issue.  Papers are invited from scholars and practitioners across all disciplines related to the program. Please submit a title and abstract (of 500-100 words) or draft paper for works in progress. Abstracts or drafts should be submitted by September 1, 2013. Submissions may be accepted on a rolling basis after that time until all speaking positions are filled.

Presentations (without publication) based on Abstracts:  For speakers interested in presenting without submitting a publishable article, please submit an abstract of the proposed presentation. Abstracts should be submitted by September 1, 2013. Submissions may be accepted on a rolling basis after that time until all speaking positions are filled.

Publication of Corporate Handbook on Cyber Defense: The Law + Informatics Institute may edit and publish a handbook for corporate counsel related to the topics addressed at the symposium. Scholars and practitioners interested in authoring book chapters are invited to submit their interest by September 1, 2013 which may be in addition to (or as an adaptation of) a submitted abstract for The Northern Kentucky Law Review. Submissions may be accepted on a rolling basis after that time until all chapter topics are filled.

About the Law and Informatics Institute:  The Law + Informatics Institute at Chase College of Law provides a critical interdisciplinary approach to the study, research, scholarship, and practical application of informatics, focusing on the regulation and utilization of information – including its creation, acquisition, aggregation, security, manipulation and exploitation – in the fields of intellectual property law, privacy law, evidence (regulating government and the police), business law, and international law.

Through courses, symposia, publications and workshops, the Law + Informatics Institute encourages thoughtful public discourse on the regulation and use of information systems, business innovation, and the development of best business practices regarding the exploitation and effectiveness of the information and data systems in business, health care, media, and entertainment, and the public sector.

For More Information Please Contact:

  • Professor Jon M. Garon, symposium faculty sponsor and book editor: garonj1@nku.edu or 859.572.5815
  • Lindsey Jaeger, executive director: JaegerL1@nku.edu or 859.572.7853
  • Aaren Meehan, symposium editor, meehana2@mymail.nku.edu or 859-912-1551

New York Times disclosure of cyber-attacks should pave way for greater corporate engagement and a critical infrastructure executive order

Seal of the White House Office of Homeland Sec...

Seal of the White House Office of Homeland Security, which was formed by executive order on October 8, 2001,http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011008-2.html and later grew into the United States Department of Homeland Security. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

With the lead story in the New York Times focused on its own failure to defend from Chinese political computer hacking, there is a renewed concern regarding the vulnerability of domestic computer systems, particularly those that are part of the critical national infrastructure. Homeland Security describes critical infrastructure as “the assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”

While the Communications Sector is one of the 18 Sectors identified as part of the critical infrastructure, the focus is on the telecommunications network rather than the content itself. Nonetheless, the continuing attack which lasted over four months raises serious questions regarding the ability of organizations to effectively defend themselves against a serious professional attack.

Among the facts that stood out was the failure of commercial antivirus software. According to the Times, “[o]ver the course of three months, attackers installed 45 pieces of custom malware. The Times — which uses antivirus products made by Symantec — found only one instance in which Symantec identified an attacker’s software as malicious and quarantined it, according to Mandiant.”

The nature of the exposure has also changed. Instead of attacks targeted at firewalls, the campaign is not conducted through phishing – bogus links in innocuous emails that open the firewall to allow installation of “remote access tools” — or RATs.

Those tools can siphon off oceans of data — passwords, keystrokes, screen images, documents and, in some cases, recordings from computers’ microphones and Web cameras — and send the information back to the attackers’ Web servers.

Michael Higgins, chief security officer at The Times, said: “Attackers no longer go after our firewall. They go after individuals. They send a malicious piece of code to your e-mail account and you’re opening it and letting them in.”

To meet this threat the Department of Homeland Security established the Office of Infrastructure Protection in 2002. It has its hands full.

This is a complex mission. Critical infrastructure ranges from the nation’s electric power, food and drinking water to its national monuments, telecommunications and transportation systems, chemical facilities, and much more. The vast majority of critical infrastructure in the United States is privately owned and operated; thus, public-private partnerships are essential to protect and boost the resilience of critical infrastructure and respond to events.

The attacks are real.  The Washington Post has reported on an overseas attacks which target utilities, including one which gained control of a Texas water utility.

Uncounted numbers of industrial control computers, the systems that automate such things as water plants and power grids, were linked in, and in some cases they were wide open to exploitation by even moderately talented hackers. … From October to April, the DHS received 120 incident reports, about the same as for all of 2011. But no one knows how often breaches have occurred or how serious they have been. Companies are under no obligation to report such intrusions to authorities.

Congress flirted with new legislation to update the obligation of companies in the 18 sectors which provide our critical infrastructure but it was ultimately unable to agree on legislative action. In its place, President Obama is expected to issue an executive order which will highlight the obligation to respond to a notice of imminent threat or to update the capacity to respond to a cyber-attack by any organization within one of the sectors which receives a governmental notice.  A possible draft of the order is available here.

While business is reluctant to embrace these new obligations, the acknowledgment by the New York Times of the vulnerability companies face should change the dialogue about the executive order and the need to plan for cyber-defense rather than complain about its costs. After all, the cost of inaction will be much, much higher.

Join over 300 professionals before space runs out at NKU Security Symposium

 The NKU Security Symposium with the inclusion of the legal track takes place this Friday. It will be a great opportunity to cross-train with security and privacy professionals, programmers, IT specialists and legal specialists. The legal track announcement is below:

2012 NKU Security Symposium

Friday, Oct. 12, 2012
NKU METS Center in Erlanger, KY

Register Now!

The 2012 Security Symposium, for the 6th year in a row, will bring together security professionals for a multi-track conference focused on the various aspects of security in information technology today. The symposium will focus on IT security challenges, best practices, and professional discussions, and will include a legal track focusing on the intersection of law and security. The symposium is presented by the Center for Applied Informatics, NKU Chase Law & Informatics Institute and CincyIP. Four hours of Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana CLE credits are anticipated.  This conference is free, but space is limited. Register now!

The Security Symposium is organized into five tracks:

  • Information Security Governance
    This informational track focuses on the understanding and implementation of management policy, procedures, IT audits, continuity planning, and security awareness and training.
  • Software Security
    This track incorporates knowledge about how identity theft is being fought and information
    integrity is being secured by industry ingenuity.
  • Mobile & Computer Forensics
    Learn the latest methods and tools to process and understand digital evidence.
  • Current Topics in Security
    Explore security topics focused around cloud computing, virtualization, mobile, and much more.
  • Legal Issues in Privacy and Security
    This year marks the first year with an additional legal track, enabling the legal professionals to engage with security professionals and those involved with implementation of software security.


Legal Track Presenters:

•  Prof. Jon M. Garon, director of the NKU Chase Law + Informatics Institute
•  Prof. Jack Harrison, NKU Chase College of Law
•  Craig Hoffman, Esq., partner of Baker Hostetler
•  Curtis Scribner, an attorney in the Global Privacy and Digital Legal group at Procter & Gamble
Agenda

7:30 – 8:00 AM:  Breakfast

8:15 – 8:30 AM:  Welcome Address

8:30 – 9:30 AM:  General Session I

9:30 – 9:40 AM:  Break

9:40 – 10:40 AM:  LEGAL TRACK: Curtis Scribner on “Issues in Data Privacy”

10:40 – 11:10 AM:   Refreshments and Networking

11:10 – 12:10 PM:  LEGAL TRACK: Prof. Jon M. Garon on “Navigating Through the Cloud – 
                            Legal and Regulatory Management for Software as a Service”

12:10 – 12:45 PM:  Lunch

12:45 – 1:45 PM:  General Session II

1:45 – 2:00 PM:  Break

2:00 – 3:00 PM:  LEGAL TRACK: Craig Hoffman, Esq. on “The Legal Implications of Data Breach”

3:00 – 3:30 PM:  Refreshments and Networking

3:30 – 4:30 PM:  LEGAL TRACK: Prof. Jack Harrison on “E-Discovery – 
                         Legal Issues, Strategies, and Management”

4:30 – 5:30 PM:  Reception

Learn More:
Law + Informatics Blog

Law + Informatics Facebook

Fourth Circuit Joins Ninth in Limiting CFAA – Setting Stage for More Action

In 1986, Congress amended its earlier attempt to combat computer crime with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. It was further expanded in 2001 under the USA Patriot Act. The CFAA serves as both a criminal and civil statute.  It has both strong criminal penalties for unauthorized entry into computer systems and provides an express private cause of action – enabling injured parties to sue intruders using the federal law as the basis for their claims.

The most controversial aspect of the CFAA has been the meaning of unauthorized access. Among the violations, Congress has made it a crime to “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access….” The statute provides some additional guidance. The addition of exceed has its own definition. It means “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.” § 1030(e)(6). So it seems fairly clear that using one’s password to acquire documents for which one has no right to read is a violation of the statute.

But data theft is more nuanced than just this. What about downloading documents when the person downloading has authority to use the material, but then uses that material in an unauthorized manner. Put another way – if an employee is fired and then takes the files she has had at home and brings them to her next employer, it is unlikely an CFAA claim can be made. Conversely, if she returns to work the day after being fired and downloads all the company documents, she has certainly violated the CFAA since her termination ending her authorized access to the computer. But what about the situation when one downloads the documents intending trade secret theft prior to being fired or quitting the company?

In a recent Fourth Circuit opinion, WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. Miller, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15441 (4th Cir. July 26, 2012) faced this situation.

The court explained the split of authority interpreting the statute:

In short, two schools of thought exist. The first, promulgated by the Seventh Circuit … holds that when an employee accesses a computer or information on a computer to further interests that are adverse to his employer, he violates his duty of loyalty, thereby terminating his agency relationship and losing any authority he has to access the computer or any information on it. Thus, for example, the Seventh Circuit held [in Int’l Airport Ctrs., LLC v. Citrin, 440 F.3d 418, 420-21 (7th Cir. 2006)] that an employee who erased crucial data on his company laptop prior to turning it in at the end of his employment violated the CFAA. It reasoned that his “breach of his duty of loyalty terminated his agency relationship . . . and with it his authority to access the laptop, because the only basis of his authority had been that relationship.”

The second, articulated by the Ninth Circuit … interprets “without authorization” and “exceeds authorized access” literally and narrowly, limiting the terms’ application to situations where an individual accesses a computer or information on a computer without permission. Thus, in [United States v. Nosal, 676 F.3d 854, 863 (9th Cir. 2012) (en banc)] the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that the defendant’s coconspirators, a group of employees at an executive search firm, did not violate the CFAA when they retrieved confidential information via their company user accounts and transferred it to the defendant, a competitor and former employee. It reasoned that the CFAA fails to provide a remedy for misappropriation of trade secrets or violation of a use policy where authorization has not been rescinded.

The Fourth Circuit opinion attempts to make sense of the language with a simple, plain language approach. “Congress has not clearly criminalized obtaining or altering information ‘in a manner’ that is not authorized,” the court explained. “Rather, it has simply criminalized obtaining or altering information that an individual lacked authorization to obtain or alter.”

This separates the Fourth Circuit from the Seventh Circuit and even distinguishes it somewhat from other courts. Employees who hack into their employers’ computer systems to steal data or who use the username and password of other employees to gain greater access to computer systems will remain liable under the CFAA. But those who take electronic files home to work on them at night without express permission were beyond the scope of the CFAA. Similarly, those disgruntled employees who steal electronic files while on the job may be violating their terms of employment, company policies, and state laws but they are not violating the CFAA in the Fourth Circuit.

Since it is better that the interpretation of a statute does not turn on the language in the employee handbook, this is a better result. Companies can still protect themselves by limiting access to sensitive information. Other laws protect theft of trade secrets and other torts provide remedy for breach of fiduciary duties. On the other hand, the distinction between the circuits need not be as stark. An employee who erases all company data before returning equipment has likely exceeded the authority to alter the data. This result is consistent with the outcome in the WEC and a court can still reach such misconduct under the cleaner interpretation of the Fourth Circuit.

While it remains to be seen whether the Fourth Circuit opinion invites Supreme Court review, it may be sufficiently well reasoned to invite other circuits to reconsider interpretations of the statute that go beyond the language Congress enacted.

New CRS Reports Highlight Legislation for Cybersecurity

As noted in Eric Ficher, Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions, (June 29, 2012) (CRS Report R42114) (full-text), cybersecurity is a “somewhat fuzzy subject.” Yet it has become the focus of considerable regulatory and legislative attention.

Dr. Fischer, Senior Specialist in Science and Technology, has provided a comprehensive roadmap for CRS which provides some context for the competing legislative approaches to this important but under-reported topic.

As the report notes, “There is as yet no overarching framework legislation in place, but many enacted statutes address various aspects of cybersecurity.” The report reviews proposed changes to 28 separate laws from the Posse Comitatus Act of 1879 to the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. He reports that “more than 50 statutes address various aspects of cybersecurity either directly or indirectly, but there is no overarching framework legislation in place.” So the report provides an important outline of the disparate efforts to address cybersecurity in congress.

The report identifies ten broad areas for the legislative proposals:

  • national strategy and the role of government,
  • reform of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA),
  • protection of critical infrastructure (including the electricity grid and the
  • chemical industry),
  • information sharing and cross-sector coordination,
  • breaches resulting in theft or exposure of personal data such as financial
  • information,
  • cybercrime,
  • privacy in the context of electronic commerce,
  • international efforts,
  • research and development, and
  • the cybersecurity workforce.

Not to be outdone, the companion report provides even more specific information regarding recent legislative efforts. Rita Tehan, Cybersecurity: Authoritative Reports and Resources (July 3, 2012) (CRS Report R42507) (full-text) provides a comprehensive overview. Together, the two reports provide a critical roadmap to the present legislative efforts. Tehan’s introduction provides a glimpse at the scale of the activity:

“Cybersecurity is a sprawling topic that includes national, international, government, and private industry dimensions. More than 40 bills and resolutions with provisions related to cybersecurity have been introduced in the first session of the 112th Congress, including several proposing revisions to current laws. In the 111th Congress, the total was more than 60. Several of those bills received committee or floor action, but none have become law. In fact, no comprehensive cybersecurity legislation has been enacted since 2002.”

Fischer notes the importance of these changes. As he notes, “for more than a decade, various experts have expressed increasing concerns about cybersecurity, in light of the growing frequency, impact, and sophistication of attacks on information systems in the United States and abroad. Consensus has also been building that the current legislative framework for cybersecurity might need to be revised.”

Additional coverage can be found by ITWiki, PrivacyLives, and Justice Information Sharing.

Two days until NKU Law Review Symposium on Law & Informatics

The Northern Kentucky Law Review will host the inaugural Law & Informatics Symposium on March 1-2, 2012, presented in association with the NKU Chase Law & Informatics. Offering cutting edge presentations and 10.5 hours of CLE the symposium is sure to provide an important addition to the growing understanding of the intersection between law and information systems around the globe.

Limited seating is still available. See  https://supportnku.nku.edu/ChaseLII for details.

Your registration fee includes the general and special sessions, breakfast and lunch, as well as all published materials.

This two-day conference will gather academics, lawyers, and industry leaders from throughout the United States, Europe, and Asia to focus on cutting-edge issues involving data privacy, cyber-security, international trade, and internet regulation.

The first day’s topics will include criminal justice and the media, antitrust, HIPAA/HITECH Act compliance, GLBA reporting, social media marketing, and international internet regulations. The second day will include international cyber-crime cross-border transactions, international publicity, cyber currency, privacy legislation, and many related topics.

The Symposium is an opportunity for academics, practitioners, and students to exchange ideas and explore emerging issues in informatics law, disruptive innovation, and the increasingly interconnected information environment. The agenda is available online at http://chaseinformatics.org/symposium/.

Speakers:

  • P.J. Blount, National Center for Remote Sensing, Air, and Space Law, University of Mississippi School of Law
  • Galina Borisevich, Perm State University, Russian Federation
  • Eric Chaffee, University of Dayton School of Law
  • Natalya Chernyadyeva, Perm State University, Russian Federation
  • Jorge Contreras, American University Washington College of Law
  • Evelina Frolovich, Perm State University, Russian Federation
  • Vaibhav Garg, Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing
  • Anne Gilliland, The Ohio State University College of Medicine SBS-Biomedical Informatics
  • David Harris, Harvard Law School Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice
  • Henry Judy, K&L Gates
  • Kalyan C. Kankanala, Brain League IP Services Ltd. (India)
  • Deborah Keeling, University of Louisville College of Justice Administration
  • Michael Losavio, University of Louisville College of Justice Administration
  • Rachel Lyon, Northern Kentucky University College of Informatics
  • Jasmine McNealy, Syracuse University S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communication
  • Mark McPhail, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater College of Arts and Communication
  • Svetlana Polyaskya, Perm State University, Russian Federation
  • David Satola, The World Bank
  • Susan Stephan, Kretsch & Gust PLLC
  • Lauren Solberg, Meharry Medical College
  • Judith Wiener, The Ohio State University College of Medicine SBS-Biomedical Informatics
  • Peter Yu, Drake University School of Law

For details, registration, and additional restrictions please see http://chaseinformatics.org/symposium/ or call 859.572.7577.

General Pricing: $395  – Same Day Rush: $200

Alumni Pricing: $295   – Same Day Rush: $200

Academics & Students not affiliated with NKU: $50 – Same Day Rush: $10