On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Eighteenth Annual Institute on Privacy and Data Security Law

Released on: Jun. 22, 2017
Running Time: 12:38:25

This program focuses on 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 becoming digital and data driven.  These trends create a wide range of compliance risk and liability issues regarding corporate 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 cyberhackers 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 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.

You will learn:

  • The roots of privacy law in the U.S. and around the world
  • A discussion of the risks and challenges of the Internet of Things & Big Data
  • Current consumer privacy enforcement priorities of the FTC and state attorneys general
  • How to manage privacy and cybersecurity risk in business deals
  • Latest developments in workplace privacy law, including employee surveillance trends and how to establish an employee training program
  • Ethical and cyber-risk management issues for lawyers in using information technology
  • What you need to know about cyber insurance
  • Litigation issues: how to avoid them and manage them once you’re in
  • The impact of GDPR & Privacy Shield
  • Key developments in global privacy
  • Hear directly from CPOs, CISOs and CCOs  

Special Features

  • Step-by-step analysis of a cyber-attack using a cyber-attack simulation
  • Earn one hour of CLE Ethics credit
  • Earn Continuing Privacy Education credit
Lecture Topics [Total time 12:38:25]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:07:17]
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • A Bird’s Eye View of Privacy & Data Security [01:00:33]
    Anita L. Allen
  • Internet of Things & Big Data: Privacy and Data Security Risks and Challenges [01:01:36]
    Peter Lefkowitz, Mark Watts
  • The Latest Insights from Privacy & Data Security Regulators [01:15:41]
    Ben Rossen, Matthew F. Fitzsimmons, David Glockner
  • Managing Privacy and Cybersecurity Risk in Business Deals [01:01:39]
    Matthew C. Kelly
  • Balancing Employee Privacy and Sound Company Management [00:59:05]
    Erin H. Creahan, Margaret A. Keane
  • Ethical Issues for Privacy and Data Security Professionals [01:00:46]
    Alfred J. Saikali
  • Cybersecurity: Managing the Risk & Cyber Attack Simulation [02:04:45]
    Ryan Gibney, Paul H. Luehr, Lisa J. Sotto, Paul M. Tiao
  • Managing Privacy and Data Security Litigation [01:01:58]
    Matthew H. Meade, Alan Charles Raul
  • The Impact of GDPR & Privacy Shield [01:00:39]
    Shannon Coe, J. Andrew Heaton
  • Key Developing Trends in Global Privacy [01:00:16]
    Geff Brown, Christina Peters, JoAnn Stonier
  • The Protectors: From Compliance to Implementation, the New Role of CPOs, CISOs and CCOs [01:04:10]
    Keith Enright, Susan M. Shook, Zoe Strickland

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


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Privacy, Data Protection & Issues to Watch
    Anita L. Allen
  • A Bird’s Eye View from California on Information Privacy and Data Security
    Joanne McNabb
  • Weathering the Nest: Privacy Implications of Home Monitoring for the Aging American Population
    Jill Bronfman
  • Making Sense of the Internet of Things, Boston Bar Journal, Fall 2015 (October 21, 2015)
    Peter M. Lefkowitz
  • The Internet of Things and the GDPR: Irreconcilable Differences?
    Mark Watts, Emma Macalister Hall
  • Minimizing Risk in the Internet of Things
    Theodore Claypoole, Alex Wall
  • Federal Trade Commission Staff Report: Cross-Device Tracking (January 2017)
    James X. Dempsey
  • Ready for School: Recommendations for the Ed Tech Industry to Protect the Privacy of Student Data (November 2016)
    James X. Dempsey, Kamala D. Harris
  • State of California—Department of Justice: Privacy Legislation Enacted in 2016
    James X. Dempsey
  • Assurance of Voluntary Compliance, In the Matter of Adobe Systems Inc. (October 25, 2016)
    Maneesha Mithal
  • Federal Trade Commission—Privacy & Data Security Update: 2016 (January 2016–December 2016)
    Maneesha Mithal
  • The Latest Insights from Privacy and Data Security Regulators
    Ruth Hill Bro, Christopher N. Olsen, Ann Cavoukian
  • Managing Privacy and Security Risk in the Acquisition of Services
    Maureen A. Young
  • Key Data Privacy and Security Considerations in M&A (May 8–9, 2017)
    Sue Rossler-Gomez
  • Mayer Brown Newsletter: 2017 Outlook—Cybersecurity and Data Privacy (January 31, 2017)
    Charles E. Harris, Gabriela Kennedy, Laura R. Hammargren, Stephen Lilley, Lei Shen, Jeffrey P. Taft, Luke P. Levasseur, Marcus A. Christian, Matthew G. Bisanz, Robert J. Kriss, Rajesh De, Kendall C. Burman, Joshua M. Silverstein, Rebecca S. Eisner, David A. Simon, David A. Tallman, Howard W. Waltzman, Evan M. Wooten, Oliver Yaros, Xiaoyan Zhang
  • U.S. Legal Framework for Employee Privacy
    Margaret A. Keane
  • Privacy and Security Developments in the Workplace (March 2, 2017)
    Joseph J. Lazzarotti
  • Big Data Can Lead to Big Legal Problems for Companies (June 4, 2016)
    Christine E. Lyon, Mary Race
  • Balancing Employee Privacy and Sound Company Management: Overview of Key Employee Privacy Laws (February 2017)
    Christine E. Lyon
  • Ethical Guidelines for Lawyers Operating in the Cloud
    Merri A. Baldwin
  • The Association of the Bar of the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics: Formal Opinion 2015-7: Application of Attorney Advertising Rules to LinkedIn (December 2015)
    Kathryn J. Fritz, Merri A. Baldwin
  • New York City Bar Association Committee on Small Law Firms: The Cloud and the Small Law Firm: Business, Ethics and Privilege Considerations (November 2013)
    Kathryn J. Fritz, Merri A. Baldwin
  • NYCLA Ethics Opinion 745: Advising a Client Regarding Posts on Social Media Sites (July 2, 2013)
    Kathryn J. Fritz, Merri A. Baldwin
  • District of Columbia Bar Ethics Opinion 370: Social Media I—Marketing and Personal Use
    Kathryn J. Fritz, Merri A. Baldwin
  • Addressing Director Responsibilities for Data Security
    Thomas J. Smedinghoff
  • Privacy & Information Security Law Blog: Global Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Updates and Analysis—Update: Cybersecurity
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • How to Safeguard Privacy and Data Security in Corporate Transactions, Corporate Counsel (February 22, 2016)
    Ryan P. Logan, Lisa J. Sotto
  • SEC Cybersecurity Investigations: A How-to Guide, Westlaw Journal: Securities Litigation & Regulation—Volume 21, Issue 3 (June 11, 2015)
    Lisa J. Sotto, Scott H. Kimpel, Matthew P. Bosher
  • A How-To Guide to Information Security Breaches, BNA, Inc., Privacy & Security Law Report: Volume 6, No. 14, pp. 559–562 (April 2, 2007)
    Lisa J. Sotto, Aaron P. Simpson
  • Cybersecurity Risk Management
    Ryan Gibney
  • 20 Legal Items to Remember During and After Cyber Incident Response
    Edward R. McNicholas
  • 10 Key Steps for Lawyers to Prepare for a Cybersecurity Event
    Edward R. McNicholas
  • Defending Data Privacy Class Action Litigation (2016)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Defending Security Breach Class Action Litigation (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Text Messaging and the Requirements of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (2017)
    Ian C. Ballon
  • Credit Monitoring and Data Breaches: Effective or Not?? (May 30–31, 2017)
    Matthew H. Meade
  • Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (October 1, 2016)
    Francoise Gilbert
  • Privacy Laws in Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia (March 2017)
    Cynthia Rich, Christine E. Lyon
  • The EU–U.S. Privacy Shield Versus Other EU Data Transfer Compliance Options, Bloomberg BNA—World Data Protection Report: Volume 16, Number 8 (August 2016)
    Brian Hengesbaugh, Lothar Determann, Michaela Weigl
  • Buyer Beware: Merger and Acquisition Diligence Tips to Reduce Data Privacy & Security Risks, Bloomberg BNA—Privacy and Security Law Report, 13 PVLR 1838, (October 27, 2014)
    Harry A. Valetk, Brian Hengesbaugh
  • 2016 Global Data Breach Notification Guide
    Brian Hengesbaugh
  • Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont, et al. v. IMS Health Inc. et al., No. 10-779 (U.S. June 23, 2011)
    Jonathan D. Avila
  • Bodil Lindqvist, Judgment of the Court under Article 234 EC by the Göta hovrätt (Sweden) Case C-101/01 (November 6, 2003)
    Jonathan D. Avila
  • What Skills Should Your DPO Absolutely Have? (January 24, 2017)
    Thomas Shaw, Mike Smith
  • From Here to DPO: Building a Data Protection Officer
    Mike Smith

Presentation Material


  • A Bird’s Eye View: Privacy & Data Security
    Anita L. Allen
  • Data privacy, GDPR, Internet of Things & a Little Big Data
    Peter Lefkowitz, Mark Watts
  • Closing the Risk Gap in Cloud Computing Agreements
    Ewa M. Abrams, Matthew C. Kelly
  • Employee Training Programs
    Erin H. Creahan
  • Workplace Privacy Law Circa 2017: Balancing Interests
    Margaret A. Keane
  • Ethics and the Connected Lawyer
    Alfred J. Saikali
  • The Role of the Board of Directors and C-Suite in Cybersecurity Preparedness
    Ryan Gibney, Paul M. Tiao
  • Cybersecurity: Managing the Risk Cyber Attack Simulation
    Paul H. Luehr, Lisa J. Sotto
  • Hot Topics in U.S. Privacy and Data Security Litigation
    Matthew H. Meade, Alan Charles Raul
  • Privacy Shield and GDPR
    J. Andrew Heaton
  • The Privacy Shield
    Shannon Coe
  • Developing Trends in Global Privacy
    Geff Brown, Christina Peters, JoAnn Stonier
Chairperson(s)
Lisa J. Sotto ~ Hunton & Williams LLP
Speaker(s)
Anita L. Allen ~ Vice Provost for Faculty and Henry R.Silverman Professor of Law , University of Pennsylvania Law School
Geff Brown ~ Associate General Counsel, Microsoft Corporation
Shannon Coe ~ Team Lead Data Flows and Privacy, Office of Digital Services Industries, International Trade Administration
Erin H. Creahan ~ JM Smucker & Co.
Keith Enright ~ Director, Global Privacy Legal, Google Inc.
Matthew F. Fitzsimmons ~ Assistant Attorney General, Department Head, Privacy and Data Security Department, Connecticut Office of the Attorney General
Ryan Gibney ~ VP, Northeast Cyber Technology Practice Leader, Lockton Companies, LLC
David Glockner ~ Regional Director, Chicago Regional Office, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
J. Andrew Heaton ~ Global Lead Counsel - Data Privacy and Security, EY Global Limited
Margaret A. Keane ~ DLA Piper LLP (US)
Matthew C. Kelly ~ Vice President, Legal, ServiceNow
Peter Lefkowitz ~ Chief Privacy Officer, GE Digital
Paul H. Luehr ~ Faegre Baker Daniels LLP
Matthew H. Meade ~ Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC
Christina Peters ~ Associate General Counsel, Corporate and Regulatory Initiatives, IBM
Alan Charles Raul ~ Sidley Austin LLP
Ben Rossen ~ Attorney, Division of Privacy & Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission
Alfred J. Saikali ~ Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
Susan M. Shook ~ Director - Associate General Counsel and Global Privacy Officer, The Procter & Gamble Company
JoAnn Stonier ~ EVP, Chief Information Governance & Privacy Officer, Mastercard
Zoe Strickland ~ Managing Director, Global Chief Privacy Officer, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Paul M. Tiao ~ Hunton & Williams LLP
Mark Watts ~ Bristows 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:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

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

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand 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.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. 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.

 

Share
Email
“Highly relevant, very practical and helpful, current advice.”

“Always great to learn the latest from colleagues and know we are not alone in facing challenges in the field.”

 

– 2016 Attendees


  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.