Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Active defense (1)
- Case law (1)
- Computer crimes (1)
- Confidentiality (1)
- Corporations (1)
-
- Crime fraud exception (1)
- Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (1)
- Cybercrimes (1)
- Cyberdefense (1)
- Cybersecurity (1)
- Defense of property (1)
- Federal Communications Commission (1)
- Hackers (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Patients (1)
- Personally identifiable information (1)
- Privilege (1)
- Regulations (1)
- Therapists (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Privacy Law
What Common Law And Common Sense Teach Us About Corporate Cybersecurity, Stephanie Balitzer
What Common Law And Common Sense Teach Us About Corporate Cybersecurity, Stephanie Balitzer
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note examines the challenges of corporate cyberdefense and suggests an approach to mitigate them. Part I outlines the background of the corporate cyberdefense quandary and various cyberdefense strategies. Part II explores the current landscape of cybersecurity law in the United States and the regulatory infrastructure that governs cybercrimes. Part II also surveys case law that illustrates the legal loopholes and ambiguities corporations face when implementing cybersecurity measures. Finally, Part III argues that the proposed active defense model fails to comport with practical concerns and established legal principles. This Note’s comparative analysis of common law ‘defense of property’ principles and …
In Light Of Reason And Experience: Against A Crime Fraud Exception To The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Catherine Thompson Dobrowitsky
In Light Of Reason And Experience: Against A Crime Fraud Exception To The Psychotherapist-Patient Privilege, Catherine Thompson Dobrowitsky
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
This Note argues against the adoption of a crime fraud exception to the federal psychotherapist-patient privilege. Part I argues that the restrictive legal elements of the privilege adequately exclude fraudulent or criminal statements from protection. Part II addresses the needed distinction between the dangerous patient exception and the crime fraud exception to the psychotherapist-patient privilege and concludes that the adoption of a crime fraud exception would threaten a limited dangerous patient exception. Part III contends that the policies underlying the attorney-client and psychotherapist-patient privileges must be distinguished and do not merit a shared crime fraud exception. This Note concludes that …