Keyur Tripathi

Managing the relevant information from disclosure is one of the great aspects of trade a secret which needs to be regulated by the following order of arrangement: Risk assessment A trade secret protection plan, after defining the types of information to be covered, will define the risk structures and mitigation steps necessary to the danger. What are the importance of the trade secret and the correct scope of the safeguard measures? In the terms, trade secrets information without permission may be taken, used or released, why, how, and by whom? All related management of the company or organizations and its external independent contractors, the supply chain for suppliers or employees or other external interested persons such as rivals or rival businessmen may be subjected to the same analysis. Naturally, all secrets or sensitive information need not be worth the unique degree of disclosure protection. Benefit and risk differ from time to time depending on the needs of individual

  ABSTRACT In the age of Big Data Analytics and COVID-19 Apps, the conventional conception of privacy that focuses excessively on the identification of the individual is inadequate to safeguard the identity and autonomy of the individual. An individual’s autonomy can be impaired and her control over her social identity diminished, even without infringing the anonymity surrounding her personal identity. A century-old individualistic conception of privacy that was designed to safeguard a person from unwarranted social interference is incapable of protecting her autonomy and identity when she is being targeted on the basis her interdependent social and algorithmic group affiliations. In order to overcome these limitations, in this paper, I develop a theoretical framework in form of a triumvirate model of group right to privacy (GRP), which is based on privacy as a social value (Pv). An individual has an interest in protecting her social identity arising out of her participation in social

  ABSTRACT In determining the enforceability of online contracts, namely those formed from the use of smartphone applications, courts typically look to whether the contract terms were reasonably conspicuous or communicated to the consumer. With the rise of ‘browse-wrap’ contracts, where terms are not directly communicated to the consumer or where the consumer is not required to click the equivalent of an ‘I agree’ button clearly manifesting assent to the terms, courts have inconsistently applied the reasonable communicativeness standard to the detriment of consumers and application developers alike. This Comment will explore the development of browse-wrap contracting jurisprudence and the need to embrace the  Specht v Netscape Communications Corp  and GDPR requirements that all contracts entered into online are only enforceable once the consumer clearly and unambiguously manifests assent to the contract’s terms. Tom Mozingo ,  Revisiting the Enforceability of Online Contracts: The Need