On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Nineteenth Annual Institute on Privacy and Data Security Law

Released on: Jun. 6, 2018
Running Time: 12:11:35
This program focuses on the current critical issues of information privacy, cybersecurity and data protection faced by all companies.  The Internet and evolving mobile and virtualized information technologies, wired and wireless, have prompted the development of powerful tools for the collection, processing, storage, and use of personal information.   More than ever, businesses are digital and data driven.  These trends create a wide range of compliance risk and liability issues regarding organizations’ rights to use personal information.  They also raise the stakes for protecting such data in increasingly challenging risk environments, ranging from internal vulnerabilities to criminal cyber hackers and other persistent threats.  Legislators, regulators and the courts are rapidly developing new law and compliance obligations to address the privacy and security implications of our expanding information economy and its continuously evolving risks.  This annual conference focuses on these developments with the goal of keeping attorneys and other privacy professionals informed and up to date in this complex and dynamic area of laws and regulations.

Lecture Topics [Total time 12:11:35]
Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.
  • Opening Remarks* [00:06:50]
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • Cybersecurity Readiness: Understanding the Landscape of Legal Requirements for Proactive Compliance [01:31:55]
    Eric M. Friedberg, Alan Charles Raul, Chris Nims
  • Cybersecurity Attacks: A Survival Guide [01:28:46]
    Robert J. Jones, Lisa J. Sotto, David Wong, Mike Dvilyanski
  • The Latest Insights from Privacy and Data Security Regulators [01:13:30]
    Maneesha Mithal, Matthew W. Van Hise, Mihir Kshirsagar
  • Managing Privacy and Cybersecurity Risk in Transactions [00:57:02]
    J. Andrew Heaton, Kumneger Emiru
  • Ethical Issues for Privacy and Data Security Professionals [00:59:41]
    Alfred J. Saikali
  • Risky Business: Data Practices That Could Cause Trouble [00:57:58]
    Peter M. Lefkowitz, Abigail M. Lyle
  • Mitigating All Risks: Lessons Learned from a Litigator’s Perspective [01:00:54]
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Monitoring Employee Conduct: Balancing Employee Privacy and Sound Company Management [00:59:08]
    Margaret A. Keane, John C. Cleary
  • Compliance with the GDPR [01:03:08]
    Bojana Bellamy, Matthew D. Lawless
  • Privacy and Data Security Compliance in the APEC Region [00:54:12]
    Laura Juanes Micas, Miriam H. Wugmeister, Joanna Fine
  • The Protectors: From Compliance to Implementation to Response, the Evolving Role of CPOs and CISOs [00:58:31]
    Chandra B. McMahon, Zoe Strickland

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:

  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • US and International Law Regarding Cybersecurity Obligations: A Uniform Global Approach?
    Thomas J. Smedinghoff
  • Alan Charles Raul and Kate Heinzelman, When and How Cos. Should Address Cyber Legal Compliance (October 24, 2017)
    Alan Charles Raul
  • Cybersecurity Governance: Questions Boards Should Ask Before It’s Too Late … and GCs Should Be Prepared to Answer (March 1, 2018) (PowerPoint slides)
    Alan Charles Raul
  • Cybersecurity Readiness: The Boardroom Perspective
    Gerard M. Stegmaier
  • Breaches in the Boardroom: What Directors and Officers Can Do to Reduce the Risk of Personal Liability for Data Security Breaches
    Gerard M. Stegmaier
  • 2018 Cybersecurity Predictions: A Shift to Managing Cyber as an Enterprise Risk (January 2018)
    James M. Aquilina
  • John Buchanan, Dustin Cho and Patrick Rawsthorne, When Things Get Hacked: Coverage for Cyber-Physical Risks
    Marty Myers
  • A How-To Guide to Information Security Breaches, BNA, Inc., Privacy & Security Law Report: Volume 6, No. 14, pp. 559-562 (April 2, 2007)
    Aaron P. Simpson, Lisa J. Sotto
  • Jena Valdetero and David Zetoony, Data Security Breach Handbook: Incident Readiness and Response (2016)
    Jena M. Valdetero
  • The Latest Insights from Privacy and Data Security Regulators (July 11, 2018)
    Thomas J. Smedinghoff, Ann Cavoukian, Christopher N. Olsen, Jill D. Rhodes, Ruth Hill Bro
  • Federal Trade Commission Business Guide: Start with Security—Lessons Learned from FTC Cases (June 2015)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Federal Trade Commission—Stick with Security: A Business Blog Series (October 2017)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Consumer Protection—Staff Perspective: Connected Cars Workshop (January 2018)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Federal Trade Commission Privacy & Data Security Update: 2017 (January 2017–December 2017)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Federal Trade Commission Event—Informational Injury Workshop (December 12, 2017)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Federal Trade Commission Event—Student Privacy and Ed Tech (December 1, 2017)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Federal Trade Commission Event—PrivacyCon 2018 (February 28, 2018)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Federal Trade Commission Case: In the Matter of TaxSlayer, LLC, a corporation: Case Timeline (November 8, 2017)
    Laura D. Berger, Cora Han
  • Federal Trade Commission Case: In the Matter of Lenovo (United States) Inc., a corporation: Case Timeline (September 13, 2017)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Federal Trade Commission Case: In the Matter of Uber Technologies, Inc., a corporation: Case Timeline (August 21, 2017)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Federal Trade Commission Case: In the Matter of PayPal, Inc., a corporation: Case Timeline (March 5, 2018)
    Cora Han, Laura D. Berger
  • Contracting with the GDPR in Consideration
    Flora J. Garcia
  • Managing Privacy and Cybersecurity Risk in the Acquisition of Services
    Maureen A. Young
  • Rebecca S. Eisner, Joe Pennell and Nickolas Card, 2018 Outlook—Cybersecurity Data Privacy (Winter 2018)
    Rebecca S. Eisner
  • Steven E. Fagell, Benjamin S. Haley and Anthony Vitarelli, Practical Guide for Maintaining Privilege Over an Internal Investigation (April 14, 2014)
    Kathryn J. Fritz, Merri A. Baldwin
  • The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, Formal Opinion No. 2012-183
    Merri A. Baldwin, Kathryn J. Fritz
  • Discoverability of Witness Interviews in California: Application of the Work Product Doctrine and the Attorney-Client Privilege
    Merri A. Baldwin
  • The Cybersecurity-Biometric Privacy Tension and Evolving Litigation Defenses
    Benjamin J. Byer
  • Call Me Maybe?: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s Restrictions on Contacting Consumers
    Jarrett L. Hale
  • P. Russell Perdew and Michael McGivney, Risks and Regulations of Biometric Technology
    P. Russell Perdew
  • A Primer on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
    Margaret M. Schuchardt
  • Defending Data Privacy Class Action Litigation (2018)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Security Breach Class Action Litigation (2018)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Complying with U.S. State and Territorial Security Breach Notification Laws (2018)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Text Messaging and the Requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (2018)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Credit Monitoring and Data Breaches: Effective or Not?? (2018)
    Matthew H. Meade
  • Privacy and Security Developments in the Workplace (March 4, 2018)
    Joseph J. Lazzarotti
  • Monitoring Employee Conduct: Balancing Employee Privacy and Sound Company Management—Overview of Key Employee Privacy Laws (February 2018)
    Christine E. Lyon
  • Marijn L. Storm and Alex van der Wolk, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Guidance on Processing Personal Information of Employees (July 11, 2017)
    Christine E. Lyon
  • Developments in Workplace Privacy, circa 2018
    Margaret A. Keane
  • Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (October 1, 2017)
    Francoise Gilbert
  • Ten Tips for Data Protection by Design and by Default under GDPR
    Francoise Gilbert
  • Regulating for Results: Strategies and Priorities for Leadership and Engagement: A Discussion Paper (October 10, 2017)
    Bojana Bellamy
  • Comments by the Centre for Information Policy Leadership on the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party’s “Guidelines on Automated Individual Decision-Making and Profiling” adopted on October 3, 2017 (December 1, 2017)
    Bojana Bellamy
  • Bojana Bellamy and Markus Heyder, Essential Legislative Approaches for Enabling Cross-Border Data Transfers in a Global Economy (September 25, 2017)
    Bojana Bellamy
  • Ensuring the Effectiveness and Strategic Role of the Data Protection Officer under the General Data Protection Regulation—CIPL GDPR Interpretation and Implementation Project (November 17, 2016)
    Bojana Bellamy
  • Global Regulatory Interoperability in a GDPR World
    Hilary M. Wandall
  • Privacy Laws in the APEC Region (March 2018)
    Cynthia Rich, Miriam H. Wugmeister, Christine E. Lyon
  • Privacy & Information Security Law Blog: Global Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Updates and Analysis: Cybersecurity Update
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • Hunton & Williams Client Alert: Privacy and Data Security Due Diligence in M&A Transactions (May 2017)
    Lisa J. Sotto

Presentation Material

  • Cybersecurity Governance: Questions Boards Should Ask Before It’s Too Late … and GCs Should Be Prepared to Answer
    Alan Charles Raul
  • Cybersecurity Attacks: A Survival Guide Tabletop Exercise
    Mike Dvilyanski, Robert J. Jones, Lisa J. Sotto, David Wong
  • Data Protection Trigger Questions
    Kumneger Emiru, J. Andrew Heaton
  • Managing Privacy & Cybersecurity Risk in Transactions
    Kumneger Emiru, J. Andrew Heaton
  • Ethics and the Connected Lawyer
    Alfred J. Saikali
  • Call Me Maybe?: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s Restrictions on Contacting Consumers
    Abigail M. Lyle
  • Call Me Maybe?: The Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s Restrictions on Contacting Consumers
    Abigail M. Lyle
  • Risky Business: Data Practices that Could Cause Trouble
    Peter M. Lefkowitz
  • Mitigating Risks: Lessons Learned from Litigators
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Someone's Watching You: Is There Any Privacy in the Employment Relationship?
    John C. Cleary, Margaret A. Keane
  • CISA Protections for Cybersecurity-Based Monitoring
    John C. Cleary
  • GDPR Highlights at a Glance
    Bojana Bellamy, Matthew D. Lawless, JoAnn Stonier
  • Canadian Privacy Legislation
    Joanna Fine
  • Privacy and Data Security Compliance in the APEC Region
    Laura Juanes Micas
  • Privacy in the APEC Region
    Miriam H. Wugmeister
Chairperson(s)
Lisa J. Sotto ~ Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Speaker(s)
Ian C. Ballon ~ Greenberg Traurig, LLP
Bojana Bellamy ~ President, Centre for Information Policy Leadership
John C. Cleary ~ Polsinelli PC
Mike Dvilyanski ~ Supervisory Special Agent, Cyber Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Kumneger Emiru ~ Senior Corporate Counsel, ServiceNow
Joanna Fine ~ Osler Hoskin & Harcourt
Eric M. Friedberg ~ Co-President, Stroz Friedberg, an Aon company
J. Andrew Heaton ~ Global Lead Counsel - Data Privacy and Security, EY
Robert J. Jones ~ Global Head, Financial Lines Specialty Claims, AIG
Margaret A. Keane ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
Mihir Kshirsagar ~ Assistant Attorney General, Office of the New York State Attorney General
Matthew D. Lawless ~ Counsel – Global Privacy, Cybersecurity & IT Law, The Procter & Gamble Company
Peter M. Lefkowitz ~ Chief Privacy & Digital Risk Officer, Citrix Systems, Inc.
Abigail M. Lyle ~ Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP
Chandra B. McMahon ~ SVP and Chief Information Security Officer, Verizon Communications, Inc.
Laura Juanes Micas ~ Director, Privacy Policy, Facebook
Maneesha Mithal ~ Associate Director, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Chris Nims ~ Senior Vice President & Chief Information Security Officer, Oath, Inc.
Alan Charles Raul ~ Sidley Austin LLP
Alfred J. Saikali ~ Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
Zoe Strickland ~ Managing Director, Global Chief Privacy Officer, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Matthew W. Van Hise ~ Assistant Attorney General, Consumer Privacy Counsel, Consumer Fraud Bureau, Illinois Attorney General's Office
David Wong ~ Managing Director, Mandiant
Miriam H. Wugmeister ~ Morrison & Foerster LLP
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  All PLI products can fulfill New Hampshire’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  All PLI products can fulfill Puerto Rico’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “video replay” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 video replay credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.

Alberta (CPD-ALBERTA):  All PLI products can fulfill Alberta’s CPD requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Dubai (CLPD-DUBAI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill CLPD credit requirements.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as the “QAS Self-Study” delivery method. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

Certified Financial Planners (CFP):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CFP credit.

 

Share
Email
“All of this was very relevant and on point. Very interesting and engaging- thank you for a great institute.”
-Vivian Dinh, Rosetta Stone

“Very relevant and excellent content.”
-Jeanine Ray-Yarletts, IBM Corp.


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.