A useful web site offering tips on how to stay safe online
Recently, I had the pleasure of speaking to James Kunick, attorney and Principal at Much Shelist, about cloud computing. Jim has nearly two decades of experience representing a wide number of clients in various aspects of intellectual property, information technology, and corporate transactions. We thought he would be a great resource to reach out to regarding the legalities of cloud computing.
The legal implications of cloud computing have not been a popular topic thus far, and we’re not sure why. It is certainly an important topic to consider and discuss with your attorney and cloud computing provider. According to Jim, there are two major legal issues with cloud computing: loss of control over your data and applications, and the privacy and security of your data. For example, what happens if your cloud provider refuses to give you access to your data? Your contract must explicitly state that you have the right to access and retrieve your data at any time during- and after- the term of the contract. It is important to consider what happens once your contract terminates, and to lay out these details in the contract.
Moreover, while fleshing out your contract with your provider, make sure to document performance requirements and remedies for failure, put special emphasis on the privacy and security of your data, and make sure what you are signing does not get you or your data trapped. Additionally, the contract should outline who is in charge of remedying a data breach, such as who pays the (potentially expensive) costs of notifying all of your customers in order to comply with the growing number of states who have breached notification statues.
We hope this helps get you thinking about cloud computing from a legal perspective. When it comes time to sign a contract with your provider, make sure you have an attorney look it over in case any of these points are not addressed.
Special thanks to Jim for taking the time to discuss this with us. If you would like to reach out with him for legal help, you can email him at jkunick[at]muchshelist.com.
This post contains material of general interest and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances.
Worried your cellphone may fall into the 16% with poop on it? You should be scared — not just of the germs lurking on your mobile, but on all your favorite tech gizmos.
Before you type anything else into your keyboard, consider this: Keyboards, on average, are five times dirtier and have 60 times more germs on them than toilet seats. They are 150 times over the acceptable limit for bacteria.
This infographic, created by Keeping It Kleen, reveals the specs of our tech gadgets we don’t really want to know. For instance, the dirtiest device in your house is the TV remote. Same applies in hotels; the remote even beats the infamous bedspread.
If you want to keep your mobile out of the 16%, take some relief knowing you can keep your tech clean with sanitizing wipes, UV light cleaners, rubbing alcohol or microfiber cleaning cloths.
Will these findings change any of your tech cleaning behaviors?http://mashable.com/2011/11/09/tech-germs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: Mashable (Mashable)
Bob Ryan, former deputy managing editor and director of electronic publishing, San Jose Mercury News. Columbia Journalism Review, The Newspaper That Almost Seized the Future.
In a very long longread, Michael Schapiro explores the technological innovation — and the people behind it — that took place at the Mercury News and its former parent company Knight Ridder from the 1980s through the noughts.
What’s amazing is how well key players anticipated the rise of the Internet and mobile technologies, the disruption they would cause and an actual heavy investment in an attempt to get ahead of the curve. Or, as the article’s dek poses, “The San Jose Mercury News, Silicon Valley’s own daily, was poised to ride the digital whirlwind. What happened?”
An important read for those exploring the history of newspaper disruption.
The social network previously announced alterations to its members’ settings without asking for fresh consent.
The website is changing its policy after an investigation by the US Federal Trade Commission, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal.
Facebook is not commenting on the story at this time.
The report suggests the site has also agreed to privacy audits by an independent organisation over the next 20 years.
However, it says the FTC does not prescribe how consent should be obtained.
"Facebook has historically been extremely resistant to transparency in its own operations, so we welcome measures that would force the company to obtain express consent of its users," said the London based advocacy group Privacy International.
"However, it seems likely that the FTC’s demands will only present a temporary obstacle in the path of Facebook’s ambitions to collect its users’ information.
"Faced with reams of small print, most users are likely to automatically agree to policy changes, with each change bringing us one step closer to Zuckerberg’s vision of a privacy-free future."
The website’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, was questioned about the firm’s privacy policies on the US television network PBS’ Charlie Rose show earlier this week.
"You have control over every single thing you’ve shared on Facebook," he said, "You can take it down."
He also said other search engines and advertising networks gathered “huge amount of information” about internet users through cookies, which he claimed was “less transparent than what is happening at Facebook”.
End Quote Andrew Charlesworth University of Bristol
Users are not social networking sites’ primary customers, advertisers and marketers are”
The FTC’s intervention is being linked to the Washington-based campaign group, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
It filed a complaint with the commission in December 2009 claiming that privacy setting changes “violate user expectations, diminish user privacy and contradict Facebook’s own representations”.
EPIC noted that the website’s users, security experts and others had voiced opposition to the change.
The organisation filed a follow-up complaint in 2010 claiming the social network had violated consumer protection law.
This year, EPIC also asked the FTC to investigate Facebook’s use of facial recognition software on users’ uploaded photographs and changes that gave the firm “far greater ability to disclose the personal information of its users to its business partners”.
Facebook says it has more than 800 million members who have used the site at least once in the past 30 days.
The Reuters news agency recently reported that the site’s revenues totalled $1.6bn (£1bn) in the first six months of the year thanks to its popularity with advertisers.
Facebook does not release detailed results as it is not a publicly traded company, although there is speculation it will float its stock in 2012.
Legal experts say any settlement with the FTC is likely to have implications for other internet firms.
"Users are not social networking sites’ primary customers, advertisers and marketers are," said Andrew Charlesworth, director of the centre for IT and law at the University of Bristol.
"While the FTC settlement indicates sites must be more open about the ways they make personal data available, and provide users with greater control, Facebook and others will already be rethinking the techniques they use to persuade users to keep their personal data publicly accessible."