000042011 000__ 02239cam\a22002535i\4500
000042011 001__ 42011
000042011 003__ SzGeWIPO
000042011 005__ 20240708145855.0
000042011 008__ 200624s2020\\\\sz\\\\\\r\\\\\000\0\eng\d
000042011 022__ $$a0736-7694
000042011 040__ $$aSzGeWIPO$$beng$$erda
000042011 041__ $$aeng
000042011 1001_ $$aNastasi, Gabriela
000042011 24503 $$aWhere Victims of Data Breach Stand$$bWhy the Breach of Personally Identifying Information Should be Federally Codified as Sufficient Standing for Data Breach Causes of Action
000042011 264_1 $$a[New York City, New York] :$$bYeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,$$c2020.
000042011 300__ $$a33 pages
000042011 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent
000042011 337__ $$aunmediated$$bn$$2rdamedia
000042011 338__ $$avolume$$bnc$$2rdacarrier
000042011 520__ $$aThis  Note  recommends  how  a  federal  law  should  approach  the standing issue in data breach cases and provides support for its conclusion that  the  mere  breach  of  personal,  non-redacted  information  should  be deemed a sufficient injury-in-fact. Part I explains the doctrine of Article III  standing,  describing  its  three  requirements  for  a  federal  lawsuit  to qualify as a justiciable case or controversy. Particular attention is drawn to the injury-in-fact prong, as the struggle for data breach plaintiffs often turns  on  whether  the  breach  of  their  information alone is  a  sufficient injury. Part II argues that there is an urgent need for Congress to pass a federal   data   breach   law.   It   encourages   Congress   to   incorporate components  of  the  California  Act  into  a  federal  law  to  achieve  a  less burdensome  standing  threshold  for  data  breach  plaintiffs.  Part  II  also provides an explanation of how this would incentivize entities that store and  maintain  consumer  data  to  implement  adequate  security  measures. Part III acknowledges that the private right of action this law would create for those who do not allege misuse may be attacked as running afoul of Article III’s case or controversy requirement. To counter that position, Part  III  discusses  precedent  that  supports  the  proposed  law’s constitutionality.
000042011 525__ $$aPublished in : Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law, vol. 38, no. 1 (2020)
000042011 650_0 $$aData breach
000042011 650_0 $$aData protection
000042011 650_0 $$aHacking
000042011 650_0 $$aInternet security
000042011 650_0 $$aIdentity theft
000042011 85641 $$uhttp://www.cardozoaelj.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NASTASI_NOTE.pdf$$yView this resource
000042011 904__ $$aJournal article
000042011 980__ $$aBIB