Cybertheft is happening big time. Cybertheft is costly and potentially destructive to a company. The business is violated where its proprietary data, its information regarding research and development, and its list of clients and their sensitive information can be seriously compromised.
Cybertheft occurs on a daily basis. Many businesses refuse to acknowledge the depth and severity of this crime or admit their security has been compromised.
The United States is beginning to crackdown on cybertheft. According to a Reuters report in the Denver Post, the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals, in New York, revived an old lawsuit regarding a serious incident of cybertheft. According to the article, this ruling will make it easier for U.S. companies to crack down on cybertheft even when the thieves themselves are outside the country.
Her here is part of the article…”The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on Wednesday ruled that a Denver-based chemical company’s lawsuit against a former account manager accused of unauthorized computer access and the misappropriation of trade secrets can proceed, overturning a ruling by a lower court. Wednesday’s ruling means that MacDermid Inc. may pursue civil damages claims against former MacDermid Chemicals account manager Jackie Deiter under Connecticut state law, even though she carried out her alleged theft of the company’s trade secrets from her home in the Toronto area. Connecticut law is applicable in this case because the trade secrets that Deiter allegedly stole were stored on a server located in the state. The ruling could make it easier to crackdown on computer theft that is carried out remotely, including from locations outside of the U.S. Deiter, who worked for MacDermid Chemicals from May 2008 until she was fired for reasons unrelated to the case in April 2011, stands accused of e-mailing customer data, laboratory reports, and pricing lists taken from the company’s server in Connecticut. Deiter has said that she did send the e-mails containing the information and documents in question but said that she did so in the course of her job, not as part of an effort to steal trade secrets.”
