In the aftermath of the verdict in U.S. v. Sullivan against the former Chief Security Officer of Uber, Joseph Sullivan, who was found guilty on one count of obstructing a Federal Trade Commission  investigation and one count of misprision, i.e., concealing a felony from authorities, there has been a flurry of discourse concerning Chief Information Security Officer accountability for government disclosures and what it might mean for the future of the profession. See U.S. v. Joseph Sullivan (N.D. Cal. No. 20-cr-00337-WHO). This includes both spirited debate and various inaccurate or misleading representations of the facts and issues presented by the case.

This article is co-authored by the designated testifying cybersecurity expert for the government in the Sullivan case, who was not ultimately called to testify but  attended every day of the trial and reviewed all of the evidence, and another legal expert familiar with the issues. Together, they seek to provide clarity and guidance.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]