Cyberattacks are on the rise. In 2017, several high-profile cyberattacks occurred involving companies such as Yahoo, Uber, and Equifax (Isaacson, 2017). While every industry is at risk of a cyberattack, law firms are attractive targets. ‘Cybersecurity is evolving. This is more than just a technology issue or an added clause in the retainer agreement–it’s the biggest risk that law firms face in 2017 (Sobowale, 2017).” However, many law firms find themselves struggling to manage cybersecurity. While preparing for cyberattacks is expensive and an often difficult task, cybersecurity is a major issue law firms must address as more clients, as well as the government, demand improved security measures.
Obstacles Involved in Developing a Cybersecurity Plan
Historically, law firms have had weak defenses against cyberattacks, including lack of employee training. A cyberattack could be detrimental to the future of a law firm. An attack could not only impact a law firm financially, it could ruin their reputation if not handled properly. Despite this fact, many law firms are not prepared for such an attack. Cost and available resources may be impeding some law firms’ ability to have a cybersecurity plan in place. The need for updated software can result in high costs to the law firm that cannot be passed on to the client. In addition, law firms may have limited staff or no resources such as an internal IT department to handle cybersecurity. However, despite these obstacles, having a cybersecurity plan is crucial to a firm’s long-term success.
Types of Risk
Hackers are sophisticated when it comes to crafting phishing emails. They typically target select individuals in a law firm, often making those emails appear to have come from another employee in the firm. An employee who has not had proper cybersecurity training may inadvertently open an email attachment which contains malware. Once that malware enters the system, it is designed to go undetected while it is gathering and storing information. If the law firm does not have proper security, the malware can result in data theft of both the law firm’s and their clients’ information.
Not all cyberattacks come from the outside. Data leakage can occur through several means. An employee who has lost a laptop or mobile device that is not encrypted could put the law firm at risk of a data breach. Downloading unapproved software or visiting websites that are not secure can also infect a law firm’s system.
What Law Firms Can Do
Pressure from clients for law firms to upgrade their cybersecurity measures have resulted in law firms becoming slightly more prepared for a cyberattack (Isaacson, 2017). Client demand however is not the only factor driving the need for better security. Nearly every state has ethical rules dealing with protection of client information. In addition to those ethical rules, there are statutory, regulatory, and contractual regulations that law firms must comply with. Attorneys could even potentially risk losing their license should they not have a cybersecurity plan in place and their clients’ data is hacked (Hood, 2018).
Create an Incident Response Plan
‘Planning for a data breach may seem less fun than preparing for a serious traffic collision, but it comes with benefits that include knowledge, prevention and better response. Contemplating the consequences of a serious cybercrime allows us to properly allocate time and money toward avoiding it (Bandler, 2018).”
There are many resources available to law firms to help them with their plan. From industry standards and guidelines provided by the Department of Justice, to guidance provided by the American Bar Association. Law firms may also rely on outside sources to assist in assessing their systems. Risk assessments and testing of systems need to be performed so that the law firm understands their risks and vulnerabilities. How and where their data is stored, and who has access to that sensitive information, should be evaluated. Once the risks are identified, a plan should then be formed detailing how the law firm will respond to an attack.
Each firm and situation are unique; therefore, each firm’s response plan will be different. Whatever a law firm’s plan is, it should be practiced periodically and kept up-to-date.
Employees are typically the first line of defense against cyberattacks. The actions they take, or don’t take, could mean the difference between avoiding an attack or being a victim of an attack. Therefore, all employees need to be properly educated on cybersecurity. ‘Law firms may want to begin approaching cybersecurity education as an opportunity to make each user a willing and enthusiastic protector of the firm’s confidential information (Burton, 2018).” Employees need to be educated not only on what information they are protecting, but why they are protecting it. If employees understand the reasoning and importance of cybersecurity, they will be more likely to play an active role in the law firms’ cybersecurity plan.
Cyber insurance can provide additional assistance in offsetting the costs associated with a cyberattack and recovery. If a law firm decides to purchase cyber insurance, there are a few items they need to ensure are covered in the policy. They need to determine if the risks are correctly identified, if the amount of insurance is appropriate, and the conditions of the policy (Isaacson, 2017). They should also consider whether to require third party vendors to purchase cyber insurance. Increasingly, vendors are being required to be subject to the same security measures as law firms. Every vendor a law firm conducts business with should have an incident response plan laying out their roles and their duties when a breach occurs.
Recovering from a Cyberattack
Once it has been determined that a law firm has been the victim of a cyberattack, there are several actions that need to take place. The first thing that needs to be done is to contain the infected devices. This may involve disconnecting them from the internet and your network.
Attorneys have an ethical and legal duty to keep their clients’ sensitive information safe. Not preparing for a cyberattack will have a negative impact financially and reputably and could shut down an entire law firm. Law firms need to recognize that cybersecurity is not only the responsibility of the IT department. Cybersecurity should be an organization wide effort. Law firms who have a solid cybersecurity plan in place have the potential to set themselves apart in the industry while protecting their clients as well as themselves.
- Bandler, J. (2018, July). Prepare for and plan against a cyberattack. Retrieved from http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/prepare_plan_against_cyberattack/P1
- Burton, J. M. (2014, September 15). 4 Steps to Getting Serious About Law Firm Cybersecurity. Retrieved from https://www.lawpracticetoday.org/article/4-steps-getting-serious-law-firm-cybersecurity/
- Hood, V. (2018, July 17). Law Firms and Cyber Attacks – What’s a Law Firm to Do? Part One. Retrieved from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/law-firms-and-cyber-attacks-what-s-law-firm-to-do-part-one
- Hood, V. (2018, August 2). Law Firms and Cyber Attacks – What’s a Law Firm to Do? Part Two. Retrieved from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/law-firms-and-cyber-attacks-what-s-law-firm-to-do-part-two
- Isaacson, D. (2017, December 10). The State of Cybersecurity in the Legal Industry: Are Things Improving? Retrieved from https://www.law.com/sites/ali/2017/12/10/the-state-of-cybersecurity-in-the-legal-industry-are-things-improving/
- Sobowale, J. (2017, March). Law firms must manage cybersecurity risks. Retrieved from http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/managing_cybersecurity_risk
The Market For Citizenship
A market is an area or arena in which commercial dealings are operated, suggesting if there were a market for citizenship the main aim would be to make profit, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. In this essay I will argue that a market for citizenship is not justifiable because I do not view citizenship as a commodity, and I also believe treating it as a commodity could diminish the moral value of citizenship.
To answer this question it is important to know what citizenship means, especially what citizenship means to me. I align myself with the republic concept of citizenship which seeks to focus on the community as a whole instead of just the individual (Isin and Turner, 2011). It emphasises the important of democracy, and to have a democracy is to self-rule and self-govern which requires “a willingness to sacrifice individual interests for the sake of the common good” and “the ability to deliberate well about common purposes and ends.” (Schäfer, 2011). I think that having citizenship imparts a sense of duty to respect the democracy and the fact that it demands more from its people; its members need to be prepared to make necessary contributions in the form of “treasure (in taxes) and sometimes in blood (war)”. (Haas, 2019). I also hold the view of citizenship being a right along with a duty in the sense of democracy itself having a duty to respect its members. As part of a democracy I have the right to vote, freedom of speech, the freedom to practise my religion and multitude of laws that offer me protection. And the same cannot be said for the rest of the world, therefore it is a right that needs to be held in high regard. In my opinion, I do not believe that a market for citizenship can be justified given the importance of it which I think is becoming less recognised.
As of today a market for citizenship exists; an increasing number of countries are offering immigrant investor programmes to wealthy individuals in exchange for citizenship or rights to residency. A specific type of investor program involves the applicant giving money directly to the government in the form of a non-refundable fee or low interest loan. This could be seen as having major economic benefits for government, especially those which are less economically developed.
However, a vast number of countries offering these programs – such as Malta, the UK and Australia – can be considered wealthy countries with a high level of economic development. This heavily suggests that a market for citizenship should not be justified, as this method of selling citizenship encourages the increase of wealth into the part of the world that is “one-fifth rich” and potentially removing resources from the “four-fifths poor”. In addition to that, the growing gap between the rich and the poor objects to the republican concept of citizenship, an abundance of money or lack there of corrupts the character of people disallowing them to forgo their own interests for the sake of the republic, destroying the commonality required to self-rule. An alternative viewpoint stands that market for citizenship through immigration investment programmes is substantially insignificant in increasing the disparity between the rich and the poor. For example, in 2013 this exclusive method of acquiring citizenship made up less than 0.5% of UK immigrant applications, which is equivalent to 1600 applications (Dzankic, 2015).
Instead, they would say the real market for citizenship comprises of substantial legal fees (immigration lawyers), sham marriage and human smuggling trade. It has been reported that the value of the human smuggling industry is worth $35 billion worldwide, whereas the average investment made for the immigration investment programme per applicant in the UK is $1.6 million (Dzankic, 2015). This alternative view sustains that a market for citizenship is justifiable due to their already being a heavily unregulated multi-billion dollar industry in it, but the hope for the market is to become legitimate and equitable. An idea of selling citizenship, proposed by Becker in 1982, through the government where immigrants could gain citizenship by paying a fee to the government, and if immigrants weren’t able to pay they could secure a loan from government (Lister, 2008). In this way, the government is investing in the immigrants themselves in an effort to maximise the economy of the country. However, I do not think this constitutes a market as the government is effectively acting as a monopoly, the government being the only seller of that good with no close substitute, with the ‘profits’ made being reinvested into the government (Lister, 2008).
Through the sale of citizenship, it is easy for people to forget the significance of citizenship considering the motivations behind acquiring citizenship could include: monetary gain, establishing residence in a low tax jurisdiction or perhaps even to wield influence on government. Motivations such as these make citizenship nothing more than a status symbol of power and wealth, which greatly undermines what the role citizenship plays in a country. It is supposed to unite people by breaking down the barriers between social class, but marketing citizenship exacerbates the issue. Moreover, immigrants such as these hold no ties to the country they are being nationalised in and immigrant investment programmes largely undo the work of countries to re-establish “citizenship through tests and integration requirements”. (Shachar and Baubock, 2014). Alternatively, others may argue that the way citizenship is obtained through jus soli (birthright citizenship) or jus sanguinis (citizenship determined by place of birth of parents) is arbitrary and should not be treated any differently to people who are prepared to pay for it (Shachar and Baubock, 2014). I would argue that people who acquire citizenship through jus soli or jus sanguinis provides protection to citizens for life considering that these birthright rules makes them equal and unlike social status their place of birth, or the place of birth of their parents is absolute and it cannot change.
A market for citizenship is not justifiable because it desensitises people into treating it as a commodity and it also has a severely negative impact on democracy by increasing the gap between the rich and the poor thus failing to put personal circumstances aside to be able to work together from the greater good of the republic.
Closure Birthright Citizenship In America
The fourteenth amendment otherwise called the correction that gives inheritance citizenship has been in the United States Constitution since 1868 and should keep on remaining there on the grounds that individuals contended energetically for it. In 2012, Republican legislators in Arizona had a plan to make a law to decline citizenship to the offspring of undocumented settlers. From that point onward, the United States has been bantering to wipe out the inheritance citizenship as an approach to change migration. This privilege ought not to be wiped out as an approach to change movement. On the off chance that this privilege is wiped out the main youngsters will’s identity viewed as American are the kids that are American by bloodline. Individuals go to the United States for some motivations to work and have a superior future for themselves and their youngsters. All things considered, the United States is the ‘place that is known for fresh new chances.’
Since the bequest citizenship has been giving kids and their families better chances and a superior future for quite a long time, it ought not to be wiped out at all. Disposing of the inheritance citizenship would not diminish unlawful movement, it would just end up being exorbitant to all American individuals and is un-American. Will Wilkinson, a specialist at the Cato Institute says wiping out this privilege would make ‘America more, instead of less, inviting to newcomers.’
At the end of the day, Wilkinson implies that dispensing with the claim citizenship will be a less forceful approach to change migration since then outskirt watch would not need to utilize power to keep migrants out of the United States. In any case, wiping out this privilege isn’t the most ideal approach to change movement. As indicated by the official executive of the National Foundation for American Policy, Stuart Anderson, ‘Such a change would not diminish unlawful migration, since there is little proof the essential inspiration of illicit settlers coming here is to conceive an offspring on U.S. soil, instead of employment. ‘ If we dispose of this correct it won’t ensure a decline for unlawful movement since we don’t realize what number of individuals come here from outside nations to have their kids here or come searching for occupations. He additionally specifies, ‘Nations that don’t ensure inheritance citizenship have not disposed of illicit migration.’ Therefore, the United States would require a superior motivation to take out the claim citizenship.
Starting at now, the bequest citizenship has made it simple to demonstrate your citizenship by just having a birth endorsement to indicate you were conceived on U.S soil. Demonstrating citizenship by demonstrating a birth authentication isn’t exorbitant in any way. Linda Chavez, the seat of the Center for Equal Opportunity clarifies, Maybe the most vital reason moderate voters ought to be very incredulous of denying claim citizenship is the thing that it would do to every single American national who conceive an offspring in the United States.’ Chaves cautions Americans that they have to truly take a gander at the portion of the outcomes that would happen in the event that we cancel this right. Margaret Stock, a resigned military officer and a lawyer who shows political theory at the University of Alaska, takes note of that; ‘Americans currently pay $600 to the government to confirm citizenship in specific cases, and lawful expenses can run another $600 to $1,000.
In the event that each infant required a positive safeguard of its citizenship status, these sorts of expenses would be borne by unseasoned parents in America. ‘Anderson expresses that the expense would go considerably further without the bequest citizenship. Stock finishes up, ‘a period when numerous Americans support less government, not more.’ Furthermore, ‘This proposition undermines to end up the most recent in a long queue of costly check frameworks that come up short an essential money-saving advantage investigation and compromise to suffocate Americans in administration at each phase of their lives.’Therefore, Americans should consider this expensive result before choosing to dispense with it. The proposed change will force oppressive bureaucratic expenses on all infants and their folks when numerous Americans support less government, not more.’
At the point when the bequest citizenship was sanctioned in 1868 it had an enormous effect in individuals’ lives and killing it will likewise have a gigantic effect in their lives. Will Wilkinson expresses that, Ending full right citizenship leaves open many moderate conceivable outcomes, for example, conceding citizenship to youngsters destined to outside natives who have lawfully dwelled in the nation for a foreordained number of years. Despite the fact that this might be valid, as indicated by Anderson, Several classes of kids could turn out to be to a great extent stateless, incorporating those with guardians who can guarantee double citizenship, are in an impermanent visa status or without legitimate status.
Moreover, Anderson expresses, The Migration Policy Institute appraises another 100,000 to 300,000 youngsters a year would live here without legitimate status. Kids without lawful status would not have the capacity to completely partake in the American culture. Stock says, changing our standard would make us contribute vigorously to the current worldwide populace of stateless individuals. What’s more, we as a country have proclaimed that individuals have a human appropriate to have a nation. Disposing of this correct will leave many individuals stateless with no place to live which makes this a un-American activity.
Dispensing with this privilege is un-American. Stock notices, This is our remarkable legacy, one that a huge number of troopers natives and noncitizens battled the Civil War to authorize. Bequest citizenship has been the standard since the beginning of the Republic, and we should have an entirely valid justification to transform it. As such, individuals battled for this privilege and for it to be simply effortlessly removed as an approach to change movement isn’t right. Besides, Stock notices, What we are truly discussing here is rebuffing youngsters for something terrible that their folks did or possibly not notwithstanding anything awful however simply being from the wrong nation. Youngsters ought not to be rebuffed for a choice they didn’t make. Since I could get citizenship through this claim citizenship, I have a ton of advantages that lead me to a superior future which is extraordinary for me, and additionally, others and I would need other kids to be available to similar chances. Sandra Fitzgerald, the writer of an article remarking in light of the LA Times article, Don’t End Birthright Citizenship, states that [that the truth of presenting citizenship] is an imperative insistence that being an American doesn’t rely upon bloodlines.
Dispensing with this correct will just make individuals question which ethnicity is the to be American. Wilkinson makes reference to that these individuals come here to have kids so then their youngsters would then be able to support their family into getting to be American nationals, these kids are otherwise called grapple babies. He says, Hence the dread of the grapple infant, a murmuring statistic arrive mine set to detonate into a multi-headed intrusion of Telemundo fans. This is clearly a supremacist explanation with him saying, Telemundo fans and I will return and express the way that individuals don’t just come here to have their youngsters. Along these lines, expelling this correct will simply prompt a great deal of bigotry.
This privilege has been around for quite a while and to simply remove it as an approach to change migration isn’t right. This privilege is our history and we battled a war to get this privilege so it would be un-American to transform it. Individuals likewise merit a privilege to dwell in a nation, we shouldn’t have a substantial stateless populace it isn’t right. America is the place that is known for fresh chances to succeed and it should remain as such. As Americans, we ought to have the capacity to help individuals that expectation for a superior future. America ought not to be founded on bloodlines. Taking out this correct will make a life for Americans significantly more confused on the grounds that individuals would need to squander a ton of cash endeavoring to demonstrate their citizenship.
A ton of kids won’t have extraordinary open doors that they merit for a choice they didn’t make. The United States needs to keep on being the land that has a wide range of kinds of ethnicities, who shouldn’t be founded on bloodlines. In this manner, Americans should think about every one of the results previously choosing to wipe out the bequest citizenship. Life today is now muddled and we ought not to need to confuse it significantly more. Taking everything into account, the claim citizenship ought not to be evacuated or changed in light of all the unforgiving results that accompany its disposal.
Stuart. Closure Birthright Citizenship Would Be Costly for Americans.