OMOS: A Framework for Secure Communication in Mashup Applications

Selection of genes that are differentially expressed and critical to a particular biological process has been a major challenge in post-array analysis. Recent development in bioinformatics has made various data sources available such as mRNA and miRNA expression profiles, biological pathway and gene annotation, etc. Efficient and effective integration of multiple data sources helps enrich our knowledge about the involved samples and genes for selecting genes bearing significant biological relevance. In this work, we studied a novel problem of multi-source gene selection: given multiple heterogeneous data sources (or data sets), select genes from expression profiles by integrating information from various data sources. We investigated how to effectively employ information contained in multiple data sources to extract an intrinsic global geometric pattern and use it in covariance analysis for gene selection. We designed and conducted experiments to systematically compare the proposed approach with representative methods in terms of statistical and biological significance, and showed the efficacy and potential of the proposed approach with promising findings.

An Appraisal of the Legal Framework on Confidential Information and Trade Secrets in Nigeria

Graph model are increasingly popular among modern applications for its ability to model complex relationships between entities. Users tend to query the data as a graph with graph operations (e.g., graph navigation and exploration). However, a large fraction of the data resides in relational databases or other storage systems. Challenges arise in uniformly querying multiple heterogeneous data sources as a graph. Traditional solutions are limited by time-consuming data integration, expensive development effort, and incomplete query requirements. Thus, we developed Lynx, a general graph query framework, to simplify querying graph data by converting complex statements into basic graph operations. Instead of connecting directly to the data sources, Lynx retrieves data through user-implemented interfaces for those graph operations. We demonstrate Lynx's capabilities through real-world scenarios, showcasing Lynx's ability to process graph queries on multiple heterogeneous data sources and also to be used as a generic graph query engine development framework.

As one of the fundamental technologies in cloud computing, services computing is playing a critical role to enable provisioning of software as a service (SaaS). However, how to effectively and efficiently develop and deploy personalized SaaS and enterprise mashups on the cloud platforms remain a big research challenge. SaaS developers and researchers may adopt certain strategies by leveraging existing services available in the cloud and using model driven approach. They can compose and design new value-added services as on-demand SaaS and enterprise mashup applications deployed on cloud platform. In this paper, we propose an On-Demand Service-Oriented Model Driven Architecture (ODSOMDA) approach that involves adding Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) elements into MDA to realize the model transformation based on a Role&Goal-Process-Service (RGPS) meta-model. The meta-level analysis of MDA is applied to facilitate construction of SaaS and mashup applications through three-layer automatic (semi-automatic) model transformation. Finally, we develop an enterprise mashup prototype as a practical case study to prove the effectiveness of the proposed approach.

The urgency of scientific paper is related to the need to protect information with limited access to individuals and legal entities, namely confidential information and trade secret in Ukraine. Scientific views on the issues in this important area for our state, which concerns the protection of confidential information and trade secret in Ukraine, are considered. The need for divergence between the legal concepts of “confidential information” and “trade secret” in Ukraine has been established. This issue can be resolved by removing references to a legal entity in the legislative definition of confidential information in Ukraine. Namely, to formulate the definition of the legal term “confidential information”, for example, as follows: confidential information – information that has value for a natural person, including information about family secrets of a natural person, other information about a natural person, access to which is limited to a natural person and which can be distributed in a certain manner at its will in accordance with the conditions stipulated by it. Regarding trade secret in Ukraine: adopt the Law of Ukraine “On Trade Secret” based on the example we proposed in our previous works.

Trade Secrets – A Detailed Analysis of Domestic and Global Challenges

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. "As a result of increasing interconnectivity, information systems and networks are now exposed to a growing number and a wider variety of threats and vulnerabilities. This raises new issues for security." OECD Guidelines for the Security of Information Systems and Networks, July 25, 2002, at p. 7, available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/22/15582260.pdf. 2. Although not the subject of this article, it is important to note that countries are also enacting cybercrime legislation to make clear that certain online activities are illegal and to assist law enforcement in efforts to prosecute cyber criminals. To that end, the Privacy and Computer Crime Committee of the American Bar Association Section of Science & Technology Law has recently undertaken a project to develop a Model Cybercrime Law for the UN International Telecommunication Union's (ITU) Cybersecurity Work Programme to Assist Developing Countries. See also the International Guide to Combating Cybercrime published by this Committee, available at http://www.abanet.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=ST202003. 3. See the Appendix for a compilation of some of the key laws and regulations governing information security. 4. See, e.g., EU Data Protection Directive and HIPAA, cited in the Appendix. 5. See, e.g., E-SIGN, UETA, and UN Convention cited in the Appendix. 6. See, e.g., Kimberly Kiefer and Randy V. Sabett, Openness of Internet Creates Potential for Corporate Information Security Liability, BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, Vol. 1, No. 25 at 788 (June 24, 2002); Alan Charles Raul, Frank R. Volpe, and Gabriel S. Meyer, Liability for Computer Glitches and Online Security Lapses, BNA Electronic Commerce Law Report, Vol. 6, No. 31 at 849 (August 8, 2001); Erin Kenneally, The Byte Stops Here: Duty and Liability for Negligent Internet Security, Computer Security Journal, Vol. XVI, No. 2, 2000. 7. See, e.g., Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007); Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006); and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005) (all affirming a negligence cause of action). See also, In Re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77236 (D. Mass. October 12, 2007) (rejecting a negligence claim due to the economic loss doctrine, but allowing a negligent misrepresentation claim to proceed). 8. See, e.g., American Express v. Vinhnee, 2005 Bankr. Lexis 2602 (9th Cir. Bk. App. Panel, 2005); Lorraine v. Markel, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 33020 (D. MD. May 4, 2007). 9. Available at www.pcisecuritystandards.org. 10. Available at www.cabforum.org. 11. ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005) (hereinafter "ISO/IEC 27001"), available for purchase at http://www.standards-online.net/InformationSecurityStandard.htm. 12. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter "EU Data Protection Directive"). 13. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 14. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 15. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA"), 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2 and 1320d-4, (providing that "each person … who maintains or transmits health information shall maintain reasonable and appropriate administrative, technical, and physical safeguards: (A) to ensure the integrity and confidentiality of the information; (B) to protect against any reasonably anticipated: (i) threats or hazards to the security or integrity of the information; and (ii) unauthorized uses or disclosures of the information; and (C) otherwise to ensure compliance with this part by the officers and employees of such person," at 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(d)(2). 16. Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act ("GLB"), Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November 12, 1999), at §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, providing that "[E]ach financial institution has an affirmative and continuing obligation to respect the privacy of its customers and to protect the security and confidentiality of those customers' nonpublic personal information." 17. See, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"), Public Law 106-102, §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, and implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift Supervision) and 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (FTC). 18. Final HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Part 164. 19. There have also been efforts in the United States to pursue comprehensive federal privacy similar to the approach taken by many other countries. See e.g., Microsoft position paper at www.microsoft.com/presspass/download/features/2005/PrivacyLegislationCallWP.doc. Although it remains to be seen whether that approach will ultimately be adopted, it is clear that the combination of U.S. state and federal law has, in effect, imposed a comprehensive obligation of security with respect to all personal information held by all companies. 20. See, e.g., FTC enforcement actions regarding In the Matter of Sunbelt Lending Services, Inc.; In the Matter of Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.; In the Matter of MTS, Inc., d/b/a Tower records/Books/Video; In the matter of Guess?, Inc.; FTC V. Microsoft; and In the Matter of Eli Lilly and Company cited in the Appendix. 21. See, e.g., FTC enforcement actions regarding In the Matter of CardSystems Solutions, Inc.; United States v. ChoicePoint, Inc.; In the Matter of DSW Inc.; and In the Matter of BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc. cited in the Appendix. 22. See list in the Appendix. 23. See, e.g., Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). 24. 205 Mich. App. Lexis 353 at ∗16 (Mich. App. 2005). 25. 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 at ∗9 (D. Minn. 2006). 26. Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). 27. In Re TJX Companies Retail Security Breach Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 77236 (D. Mass. October 12, 2007), at pp. 28–29. 28. Ibid. 29. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 defines the term "information system" to mean "any equipment or interconnected system or subsystems of equipment that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information, and includes—(A) computers and computer networks; (B) ancillary equipment; (C) software, firmware, and related procedures; (D) services, including support services; and (E) related resources." Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-296, at Section 1001(b), amending 44 U.S.C. § 3532(b)(4). 30. See, e.g., Australia, Information Privacy Principles under the Privacy Act 1988, Principle No. 4, available at www.privacy.gov.au/publications/ipps.html; AICPA and the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA), Generally Accepted Privacy principles, Principle No. 8, available at http://infotech.aicpa.org/Resources/Privacy/Generally+Accepted+Privacy+Principles; APEC, Privacy principles, Principle No. 7, available at http://austlii.edu.au/∼graham/APEC/APECv10.doc; US-EU Safe Harbor Privacy Principles, available at www.export.gov/safeharbor/SHPRINCIPLESFINAL.htm; Direct Marketing Association, Online Marketing Guidelines, available at www.the-dma.org/guidelines/onlineguidelines.shtml. 31. Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (hereinafter "EU Data Protection Directive"). 32. EU Data Protection Directive, Preamble at Para. 46. 33. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1). 34. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 35. See statutes listed in the Appendix. 36. See generally, Bruce H. Nearon, Jon Stanley, Steven W. Teppler, and Joseph Burton, Life after Sarbanes-Oxley: The Merger of Information Security and Accountability, Jurimetrics Journal, Vol. 45, 379–412 (2005). 37. American Express v. Vinhnee, 336 B.R. 437; 2005 Bankr. Lexis 2602 (9th Cir. December 16, 2006). 38. Ibid., at p. 444. 39. Ibid., at p. 445. 40. Ibid., at pp. 446–447. 41. Ibid., at p. 449. 42. See, e.g., National Association of Corporate Directors, Information Security Oversight (2007). 43. Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Section 302. 44. See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations (Federal Reserve) 12 C.F.R. 208, Appendix D-2.III(A). 45. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section 164.308(a)(2). 46. See, FTC Decisions and Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix, including Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 27(a), p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at II.A. 47. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. 3544(a). 48. E. Michael Power and Roland L. Trope, Sailing in Dangerous Waters: A Director's Guide to Data Governanc e , American Bar Association (2005), p. 13; Roland L. Trope, "Directors' Digital Fiduciary Duties," IEEE Security & Privacy, January/February 2005 at p. 78. 49. Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996). 50. Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005), at pp. 11–13 (noting that harm was foreseeable, but Board took no action). 51. Securing Cyberspace: Business Roundtable's Framework for the Future, Business Roundtable, May 19, 2004 at pp. 1, 2; available at www.businessroundtable.org/pdf//20040518000CyberSecurityPrinciples.pdf. The Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. corporations with a combined workforce of more than 10 million employees in the United States. See www.businessroundtable.org. 52. Information Security Governance: A Call to Action, Corporate Governance Task Force Report, National Cyber Security Partnership, April 2004, pp. 12–13, available at www.cyberpartnership.org/InfoSecGov4_04.pdf. The National Cyber Security Partnership (NCSP) is led by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), TechNet, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in voluntary partnership with academicians, CEOs, federal government agencies, and industry experts. Following the release of the 2003 White House National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace and the National Cyber Security Summit, this public–private partnership was established to develop shared strategies and programs to better secure and enhance America's critical information infrastructure. Further information is available at www.cyberpartnership.org. 53. GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part III.A and Part III.F. 54. See, e.g., Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002) 44 U.S.C. Section 3542(b)(1); GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part II.B; HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section 164.306(a)(1); Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4. 55. See, e.g., 44 USC 3532(b)(1), emphasis added. See also FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section 3542(b)(1). Most of the foreign privacy laws also focus their security requirements from this perspective. This includes, for example, the EU Privacy Directive, Finland's Privacy Law, Italy's Privacy Law, and the UK Privacy Law. Also in this category is the Canadian Privacy Law. 56. Although they often focus on categories of security measures to address. See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Part 164. 57. See, e.g., FDA regulations at 21 C.F.R. Part 11 (procedures and controls); SEC regulations at 17 C.F.R. 257.1(e)(3) (procedures); SEC regulations at 17 C.F.R. 240.17a-4 (controls); GLB regulations (FTC) 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (safeguards); Canada, Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, Schedule I, Section 4.7 (safeguards); EU Data Privacy Directive, Article 17(1) (measures) available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/docs/95-46-ce/dir1995-46_part1_en.pdf. 58. See, e.g., HIPAA 42 U.S.C. 1302d-2, and HIPAA Security regulations, 45 CFR 164.306; COPPA, 15 U.S.C. 6502(b)(1)(D), and COPPA regulations 16 C.F.R. 312.8; IRS Rev. Proc. 97-22, sec. 4.01(2); SEC regulations 17 C.F.R. 257. See also UCC Article 4A, Section 202 ("commercially reasonable" security procedure), and Microsoft Consent Decree. 59. "Appropriate" security required by: HIPAA 42 U.S.C. 1302d-2, and HIPAA Security regulations, 45 CFR 164.306; EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1). 60. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 17(1) (emphasis added) 61. See, e.g., Belgium—Belgian Law of 8 December 1992 on Privacy Protection in relation to the Processing of Personal Data, as modified by the law of 11 December 1998 Implementing Directive 95/46/EC, and the law of 26 February 2003, Chapter IV, Article 16(4); Denmark—Act on Processing of Personal Data,; Act No. 429 of 31 May 2000 (unofficial English translation), Title IV, Part 11, Section 41(3); Estonia—Personal Data Protection Act; Passed February12, 2003 (RT1 I 2003, 26, 158), entered into force October 1, 2003, Chapter 3, Sections 19(2); Greece—Law 2472/1997 on the Protection of Individuals with regard to the Processing of Personal Data (as amended by Laws 2819/2000 and 2915/2001); Article 10(3); Ireland—Data Protection (Amendment) Act 2003; Section 2.-(1)(d) and First Schedule Article 7; Lithuania—Law on Legal Protection of Personal Data, January 21, 2003, No. IX-1296, Official translation, with amendments April 13, 2004, Article 24(1); Netherlands—25 892—Rules for the protection of personal data (Personal Data Protection Act) (Unofficial translation); Article 13; Portugal—Act on the Protection of Personal Data (transposing into the Portuguese legal system Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of October 24, 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data), Article 14(1); Slovakia—Act No 428 of July 3, 2002 on personal data protection; Section 15(1); Sweden—Personal Data Act (1998:204); issued April 29, 1998, Section 31; and UK—Data Protection Act 1998, Schedule 1, Part I, Seventh Principle. 62. See, e.g., Finland—The Finnish Personal Data Act (523/1999), given on 22.4.1999, Section 32(1); Germany—Federal Data Protection Act as of January 1, 2003, Section 9; Hungary—Act LXIII of 1992 on the Protection of Personal Data and Public Access to Data of Public Interest, Article 10(1); Italy—Personal Data Protection Code, Legislative Decree No. 196 of 30 June 2003, Sections 31 and 33; Spain—Organic Law 15/1999 of December 13 on the Protection of Personal Data, Article 9. 63. 5 USC Sec. 552a. 64. 5 U.S.C. § 552a (d)(10) (emphasis added). 65. 42 U.S.C. 1320d-2(d)(2). 66. See, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act ("GLB"), Public Law 106-102, §§ 501 and 505(b), 15 U.S.C. §§ 6801, 6805, and implementing regulations at 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift Supervision) and 16 C.F.R. Part 314 (FTC) (emphasis added). 67. Cal. Civil Code § 1798.81.5(b). 68. See UN Convention at Article 9(3), 9(4), and 9(5). 69. ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005). See text at footnotes 157–169, infra. February 1, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 208, Appendix D (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part 364, Appendix B (FDIC), 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift May 16 C.F.R. Part 44 U.S.C. Section 45 C.F.R. 164. See of the on by of the Technology and Homeland Security of the Committee on the United States 21, 2007 at p. (noting that FTC under the GLB Act as a for the obligation to maintain reasonable and appropriate available at See also, of the the on Information and the Committee on U.S. House of on April 21, 2004, at p. 5 (noting that is an of reasonable and appropriate measures in of the available at See, e.g., FTC Decisions and Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix. See, e.g., National Association of Insurance for Information Model available at in at See, e.g., Consent Decrees listed in the Appendix. 78. See, e.g., Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) and Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 (D. Minn. February 7, 2006). Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). Committee on available at See, e.g., Italy—Personal Data Protection Code, Legislative Decree No. 196 of 30 June 2003, B, § Act No 428 of July 2002 on personal data § the Appendix, Act, B, Section Act, Section the Appendix, Act, Article Act, Section Act, 16(4); Act, Section 41(3); Act, Section Act, Section 32(1); Act, Section 9; Act, Article 10(3); Act, Article 10(1); Act, Article 24(1); Act, Article 13; Act, Article 14(1); Act, Section 15(1); Act, Article 9; Act, Section 31; UK Act, Schedule 1, Part I, Seventh Act, Article 7. the Appendix, Act, Schedule 2, Section Act, Act, Schedule 1, 4.7 Principle 7, Act, Section Act, Section Act, B, Sections and Act, Sections 17 and the Appendix, Act, Section A Security § Act, Section Decree the Appendix, Decree the Appendix, Act, Section Principle 4; Act, Article Act, Article Act, Sections and Act, Section Act, Section Act, Section Act, B, Sections and Act, Sections 17 and Bruce & Digital Security in a & at p. See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. Eli Lilly Decision at II.B; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Eli Lilly Decision at See, e.g., FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Sections and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part See, e.g., In Electronic July 30, Financial Council, 2; available at See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Eli Lilly Decision at II.B; HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Information Security Management Act of 2002 44 U.S.C. Section See, e.g., Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section See, e.g., United States v. Cir. See, e.g., Inc. v. also v. or of to with and of See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part and Part FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Sections and Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 CFR Section and and on HIPAA Security of & Section of Science & Technology Law, No. April 2003, at p. 2, available at See, e.g., HIPAA regulations 45 C.F.R. Sections and GLB Regulations, 12 C.F.R. 208, Appendix and 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part Microsoft Consent at p. 4. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Sections and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 5 and Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Sections and Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. 25, p. 6. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, and 26, pp. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 5. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 7. HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4. FISMA, 44 U.S.C. Section Eli Lilly Decision at GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. and p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. and p. 7; Eli Lilly Decision at GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30, Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section Microsoft Consent Decree at II, p. 4; Eli Lilly Decision at Microsoft Consent Decree at p. 5. Ziff Davis Assurance of Discontinuance, Para. p. 7. See, e.g., of the of the of National on 21, at See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part See, e.g., GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. Section and GLB Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). See Bell v. Michigan Council, 2005 Mich. App. Lexis 353 (Mich. App. February 15, 2005). See Guin v. Brazos Higher Education Service, Civ. No. 05-668, 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4846 at (D. Minn. February 7, 2006) that a was the to and a of a was not a of a of reasonable The Financial is a of U.S. federal agencies, that the Board of of the Reserve Insurance the National the of the of the and the of Thrift on on in an Internet 8, 2006 at p. available at on on in an Internet 8, 2006 at p. available at Guide for the Guidelines Information Security December available at Information Security July available at See National Institute of and Management Guide for Information Technology No. available at ISO/IEC 27001, Information Technology—Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements (October 2005) (hereinafter "ISO/IEC ISO/IEC § for is the and of International and is of a of the of with and a in that the The American National Institute the United States. See, The also in and in related to including The of make its with the United States. See ISO/IEC 27001, § (emphasis added). ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, § 164. ISO/IEC 27001, § ISO/IEC 27001, §§ and 6. ISO/IEC 27001, §§ and 8. ISO/IEC 27001, §§ ISO/IEC that with an International not in from legal p. 1. EU Data Protection Directive, Article 8. Article Data Protection on the processing of personal data to health in health February 15, at pp. available at (emphasis in See list of state laws in Report, Security and Laws of 15, 2005 at Appendix available at Code, § Rev. Stat. Available at www.pcisecuritystandards.org. See list in the Appendix. See, e.g., 16 CFR Section Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. § HIPAA security regulations to in the Act Security Regulations, 12 C.F.R. Part 30 Appendix B, Part security regulations to information in the financial Homeland Security Act of 2002 § 1001(b), amending 44 U.S.C. § and § amending 44 U.S.C. § information and information systems from unauthorized and regulations, 21 C.F.R. Part 11. See, e.g., Cal. Civil Code § 1798.81.5(b). See April 2, the Matter of of the Act of of Information and Information Services, No. No. April 2, at available at (hereinafter Wolfe v. MBNA America Bank, 485 F.Supp.2d 874, 882 (W.D. Tenn. 2007). in an Internet 12, 2005 available at This was by an on on in an Internet 8, available at of No. 25, The is an See, e.g., HIPAA Security Regulations, 45 C.F.R. § at p. 6. Ibid., at p. 3. Ibid. v. National 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2007), at p. 13. See, e.g., on of Security Breach Personal of Privacy of April 2006 (hereinafter at pp. at note , at p. a of such in the United States and a of the number of individuals Privacy at IRS Rev. Proc. § See list of statutes in the Appendix. on for Access to Information and Part of A to Appendix, at 12 C.F.R. Part 30 (OCC), 12 C.F.R. Part (Federal Reserve System), 12 C.F.R. Part (FDIC), and 12 C.F.R. Part 568 (Office of Thrift 29, Vol. No. 29, at p. (hereinafter the maintains personal information that the not in the laws the to the or of the information, than the individuals of any of the security of the See, e.g., Code § Rev. Stat. § Code, § Stat. § Code § 2007 The also any combination of of information that to or the such as and or and See, e.g., Breach to the of & Financial Services, December 15 USC Section This that with the of at 15 USC Section and are of in this and are of in this See, and of a Duty to Information Security Computer & L. See and to Law the Protection of Personal BNA Privacy & Security Law Report, 19, p. May See at on the of the Framework for Electronic and Services, with focus on the 26, available at Science and Technology Committee, House of Internet of July 24, at Para. of the Privacy of Canada, for in to Privacy available at See Privacy Breach of the Privacy available at Privacy available at See, of the Privacy to the Law of February at available at Available at Available at to information to state

Trade-Secret Model: Legal Limitations—Response

Confidentiality is important in legal practice as it obligates legal practitioners to protect clients' information. It is often linked to the right to privacy entrenched in section 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. The link is made on the basis of clients' entitlement to attorney-client confidentiality. Furthermore, the rules of courts in civil proceedings require legal practitioners to include clients' personal or confidential information in court documents, including their identity numbers. The requirement of clients' personal information in court documents is found in particular in Rule 3(A)(1)(b)(i) of the Uniform Rules of Court, 2009 as amended. This personal information is uploaded online in the CaseLines system, as required by Practice Direction 1 of 2023, a situation which poses a significant risk because such information may be hacked and used to commit cybercrimes. Current legislation, such as the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013, seeks to provide guidelines on how courts should protect confidential information which is included in the pleadings or affidavits. The Practice Directives, however, are silent on measures that should be taken to protect confidential information. Item 18 of the E-Rules and the Draft Amended Magistrates' Courts Rules seek to protect confidential information to a certain extent, but these have not yet been implemented. The article examines current legislation, the respective rules of court, and the approach followed by the courts, in order to determine whether confidentiality does indeed exist in civil proceedings. In addition, it briefly compares the online civil proceedings of South Africa and the United Kingdom to ascertain their differences and similarities.

A confidentiality agreement or what is often called a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is often used in every cooperation agreement as a form of protecting a company’s trade secret. NDA is a form of a special agreement between business actors as owners of trade secrets and other parties in a working relationship who have access to the trade secrets of a company. However, a business needs to disclose confidential information to other stakeholders to develop its business interests for better profitability. Through the NDA, the recipient agrees not to disclose confidential information contained in the employment agreement. The problem is how to arrange the NDA as a form of trade secret protection in the work agreement in Indonesia. This paper uses a normative juridical approach, secondary data types, and data collection techniques using literature study with qualitative data analysis techniques. The results of the study show that NDA’s are not regulated explicitly but can be found implicitly in the Trade Secret Law. By making a confidentiality agreement or NDA, the Parties are obliged to maintain confidential information or trade secrets in order to protect the owner of the Trade Secret. Policymakers in a company require the inclusion of an NDA clause in making work agreements that require employees to maintain the confidentiality of company information in accordance with statutory regulations and company regulations. Keywords: non-disclosure agreement, trade secret, work agreements

Problem setting. In a market economy and increased competition between enterprises become increasingly important concepts such as business information, trade secrets, know-how, confidential information, the information with restricted access. Given the fact that only one patent protection is unable to meet the needs of researchers, in addition to formal public protection and secured legal means we would like to pay attention at private legal measures, particular, the mode of trade secrets. Recent research and publications analysis. Different aspects of the protection of trade secrets were investigated by specialists such as G. Androschuk, J. Berzhye, I. Davydov, O. Davydyuk, D. Zadyhaylo, P. Kraynov, G. Nikiforov, S. Nikiforov, V. Rubanov, E. Solovyov, L. Hoffman, V. Chaplygin, A. Cherniavsky and others. However, at present there is a lack of comprehensive research of this legal phenomenon, equally useful for innovators and businesses that actively protect corporate security. Paper objective. This article is planned to determine the legal characteristics, structural elements and mechanisms by which the use of trade secrets in business have a positive impact on innovation development and corporate security entities. Paper main body. On the basis of requirements of Art. 505 Civil Code of Ukraine and art. 39 of the TRIPS Agreement we formulated commercial information signs under which it receives legal protection as an object of intellectual property: (1) privacy (real or potential) in the sense that it is as a whole or in a precise combination of aggregate and its components are not generally known or available to persons in the circles that normally deal with such information; (2) commercial value (not purely industrial or industrial), due to its secrecy; this information is unknown to others, which is a commercial interest; (3) the lawful holder of the information provides active special measures (technical, organizational, legal) to preserve secrecy. The objects of trade secrets, depending on the fields may be the following types of information: (1) scientific and technical; (2) management; (3) commercial; (4) financial. At this stage, there is a growing role of know-how, compared with patents, because as their special advantages and drop interest in patenting innovations as an independent factor, as well as economic and legal efficiency mode of trade secrets. Under the know-how necessary to understand the technical, manufacturing, engineering knowledge, experience and skills related to the design, development, manufacture, sale, operation, maintenance, repair, improve technology and other innovative objects which have the status of trade secrets, and a factor of competitiveness entity. Given the fact that the administrative and jurisdictional mechanisms for the protection of trade secrets are more or less clear, we focused on internal corporate events. First, this is consolidation in the basic documents of the entity (statute, founding and collective agreements, work rules on trade secret law) such provision as law on ownership and protection of trade secrets. Second, the order of the head of the entity to approve the list of information to be protected as a trade secret. Third, develop and adopt regulations on trade secrets. Fourth, to approve the regulations on the organization of the documents containing trade secrets. Fifth, to include in a labor agreement (contract) the condition of non-disclosure of trade secrets or employee expected signing of enhancing privacy protection. Conclusions of the research. In order to stimulate innovation growth and protection of corporate security entities we should propose changes to the legislation: (1) secure the definition of the concept of «know-how (secret production)» indicating that the exclusive right to the secret of acting as long as the relation of production secrets operating mode of trade secrets; (2) add Tax Code of Ukraine following types of tax benefits: (a) exemption of small businesses from paying value added goods produced using in-house production know-how (secrets), sold small businesses within the term of exclusive rights to these intellectual activities, but not more than 5 years; (B) exemption of small businesses from paying income tax amounts in the form of sales of products derived from the use of know-how (secrets) in-house production from the beginning of their use, within the term of the exclusive rights to these intellectual activities, but not more than 5 years; (3) adopt by the Cabinet of Ministers exemplary (typical) provision of trade secrets in business organizations, which determine the general procedure for the use of legal, organizational and technical means to ensure the confidentiality of trade secrets.

This research paper is devoted to the issue of protection of a legally protected interest in respect of confidential information (trade secrets and know-how). It reveals the distinction between the concepts of sub­jective rights and interests protected by law, and the study of terms and interest legally protected interest.In the science of civil law, there are different points of view regarding the understand­ing of subjective law and interest. To properly resolve the issue of the correlation of these concepts with respect to confidential information (commercial secrets and know-how), one has to find out what needs to be understood as interest. Although the current civil law of Ukraine is widespread and uses the term «interest», it does not contain a clear de­finition of the concept of «interest», «interest protected by law», a legal and substantive characteristic, which leads to different interpretations of it in judicial practice.Following the opinion of certain EU lawyers, the «right of access» to confidential information (commercial secrets and know-how) is not considered by the authors of the article as a classical subjective civil law, namely, «protected by law», since such in­formation may only be a factual monopoly (de facto), in contrast to subjective exclu­sive civil law, which arises, for example, from a patent (de jure).Thus, following the traditional positions of continental law, the authors advocate the notion that information (as well as confidential information (commercial secrets and know-how) can not give rise to ownership (possession, use and disposal) and, accordingly, there is no sub-intellectual property right, including intellectual property rights, since this notion is arbitrary. In essence, it is an exclusive right (monopoly). However, since commercial secrets and know-how relate to intangible objects that do not have the char­acteristics of intellectual property objects (exclusive rights), such a monopoly will only be de facto, and not legal (de jure), on for example, from a patented invention.Given this, and taking into account the current civil law, it would be advisable to use the term «protected by law» in relation to such an unusual object as information, confidential information (commercial secret and know-how).Therefore, proceeding from the above, cases in the court on the protection of confi­dential information (commercial secrets and know-how) should be considered not as an overridden or disputed subjective right, namely, as an interest protected by law. And since civil law in Ukraine refers both to the protection of rights and to the protec­tion of interests, it shows that even the legislator proceeds from the doctrine accord­ing to which interest is not included in the content of subjective law, but exists inde­pendently, for its boundaries.If these hypotheses are correct, then questions arise for which scientific communi­ty needs to be answered. They will be of purely practical importance, in particular, for describing (formulating) the subject matter of the dispute, the subject of the action and its grounds in the case of the protection of the interest protected by law regarding confidential information (commercial secrets and know-how). Therefore, it seems that the legislator hastened to «bring» confidential information and, in particular, com­mercial secrets under the legal regime of the object of law, and not under the legal regime of the object of information.

Cet article decrit, du point de vue d'un clinicien generaliste, une solution pour l'implementation de dossiers concernant les patients en toute securite, ainsi que les strategies mises en place pour cette implementation. Cet article souligne donc l'importance de la securite pour la confidentialite de ces dossiers, mais aussi la difficulte de mettre en place un systeme de protection de l'information sur

Data linkage refers to the process of identifying and linking records that refer to the same entity across multiple heterogeneous data sources. This method has been widely utilized across scientific domains, including public health where records from clinical, administrative, and other surveillance databases are aggregated and used for research, decision making, and assessment of public policies. When a common set of unique identifiers does not exist across sources, probabilistic linkage approaches are used to link records using a combination of attributes. These methods require a careful choice of comparison attributes as well as similarity metrics and cutoff values to decide if a given pair of records matches or not and for assessing the accuracy of the results. In large, complex datasets, linking and assessing accuracy can be challenging due to the volume and complexity of the data, the absence of a gold standard, and the challenges associated with manually reviewing a very large number of record matches. In this paper, we present AtyImo, a hybrid probabilistic linkage tool optimized for high accuracy and scalability in massive data sets. We describe the implementation details around anonymization, blocking, deterministic and probabilistic linkage, and accuracy assessment. We present results from linking a large population-based cohort of 114 million individuals in Brazil to public health and administrative databases for research. In controlled and real scenarios, we observed high accuracy of results: 93%-97% true matches. In terms of scalability, we present AtyImo’s ability to link the entire cohort in less than nine days using Spark and scaling up to 20 million records in less than 12s over heterogeneous (CPU+GPU) architectures.

Understanding the functional mechanisms of the complex biological system as a whole is drawing more and more attention in global health care management. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), essentially different from Western Medicine (WM), is gaining increasing attention due to its emphasis on individual wellness and natural herbal medicine, which satisfies the goal of integrative medicine. However, with the explosive growth of biomedical data on the Web, biomedical researchers are now confronted with the problem of large-scale data analysis and data query. Besides that, biomedical data also has a wide coverage which usually comes from multiple heterogeneous data sources and has different taxonomies, making it hard to integrate and query the big biomedical data. Embedded with domain knowledge from different disciplines all regarding human biological systems, the heterogeneous data repositories are implicitly connected by human expert knowledge. Traditional search engines cannot provide accurate and comprehensive search results for the semantically associated knowledge since they only support keywords-based searches. In this paper, we present BioTCM-SE, a semantic search engine for the information retrieval of modern biology and TCM, which provides biologists with a comprehensive and accurate associated knowledge query platform to greatly facilitate the implicit knowledge discovery between WM and TCM.