This article appeared in Cybersecurity Law & Strategy, an ALM publication for privacy and security professionals, Chief Information Security Officers, Chief Information Officers, Chief Technology Officers, Corporate Counsel, Internet and Tech Practitioners, In-House Counsel. Visit the website to learn more.
Since the passage of UETA and ESIGN in 1999/2000, I have been fascinated as to exactly how the legal terminology of these and other “digital security” statutes equates to actual cryptographic methods. When someone writes a piece of software that “meets and/or exceeds these requirements,” and are “warranted for compliance” under these acts, how do contracting officers, lawyers, judges and everyone involved understand? It isn’t quite like a set of map directions: it’s difficult to draw a straight line from act to software function. As the digital landscape continues to grow and expand in scope, how does the legal profession keep up?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
