Opinion

The Long Arm of the Law

If you don't take care of your website security, the courts might do it for you

By William Cook

The Cobell case is highly significant because it constitutes precedent for the idea that, even in the absence of proven intrusions or damages, courts can enter a protective order to secure a website until security can be established on the site. This gives privacy advocates a new and potentially potent tool against the argument that, even if personal information is compromised, a lack of evidence of loss precludes a finding of damages. In other words, "no harm, no foul" may no longer be the rule. Cobell litigation also warns that, in the absence of a clear security standard for each industry, courts will likely establish their own security standards by using 20/20 hindsight.

Don't miss the September arguments in the Cobell case. The court's determinations will have far-reaching effects on the extent to which other courts are likely to impose their individual views of computer security standards in the cases before them.

• Email
• Print
• Comments
• Digg This
• SlashDot