In the wake of the Charlottesville violence this past weekend calls to take a serious stand against white supremacy have abounded. And some companies have complied–GoDaddy and Google have refused to provide hosting services for the Daily Stormer; Twitter has suspended a number of accounts; and Apple has cut off its services to white supremacists.

The Daily Stormer previously had domain registration through GoDaddy. When GoDaddy decided to drop the popular white supremacist site, it attempted to move to Google, which also rebuffed it. Now, the site has apparently moved to the dark web. That means that it doesn’t have to work with any sort of mainstream provider, and can only be accessed through a software called Tor.

Twitter suspended some accounts linked to the Daily Stormer yesterday. For many, that was a welcome surprise–Twitter doesn’t necessarily have the best track record when it comes to dealing with harassment and inappropriate usage.

Apple cut off services like Apple Pay for white supremacist websites selling merchandise. Apple’s CEO Tim Cook also sent out a memo to all the company employees, affirming:

We must not witness or permit such hate and bigotry in our country, and we must be unequivocal about it. This is not about the left or the right, conservative or liberal. It is about human decency and morality. I disagree with the president and others who believe that there is a moral equivalence between white supremacists and Nazis, and those who oppose them by standing up for human rights. Equating the two runs counter to our ideals as Americans.

Other tech companies that have, at least in part, shut off service to white supremacists include PayPal, which cut off more than three dozen white supremacist groups, and popular dating site OkCupid, which has banned at least one known white supremacist.

We were alerted that white supremacist Chris Cantwell was on OkCupid. Within 10 minutes we banned him for life.

— OkCupid (@okcupid) August 17, 2017

Airbnb actually banned white supremacists from using its platform ahead of the Charlottesville rally, a decision which was reaffirmed by its CEO after the fact. Brian Chesky wrote:

The violence, racism and hatred demonstrated by neo-Nazis, the alt-right, and white supremacists should have no place in this world. Airbnb will continue to stand for acceptance, and we will continue to do all we can to enforce our community commitment.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tech Companies Dump White Supremacists appeared first on Law Street.

Starting August 1, Wisconsin technology company Three Square Market will inject microchips between its employees’ thumbs and index fingers. The program is not mandatory, but so far, more than 50 of the 80 employees at the company’s River Falls headquarters have volunteered.

The microchips are about the size of a grain of rice. They use radio frequency identification technology (RFID), which the Food and Drug Administration approved for human use in 2004. Once an employee gets a chip, they will be able to access the building, pay for items, and log in to computers with a wave of the hand.

The procedure is reportedly quick, painless, and free to volunteers–the company will pick up the $300 tab per procedure.

“Eventually, this technology will become standardized, allowing you to use this as your passport, public transit, all purchasing opportunities, etc.,” said Three Square Market CEO Todd Westby in a company blog post.

Some people, however, are more skeptical of the technology. Dr. Alessandro Acquisti, professor of information and technology at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, is concerned about potential  security breaches. Three Square Market insists that the chips are encrypted, but Dr. Acquisti explained to the New York Times that encryption “is a pretty vague term which could include anything from a truly secure product to something that is easily hackable.”

The chip is not currently equipped for GPS tracking, but that doesn’t mean Three Square Market won’t add it in the future. Dr. Acquisti worries that the chips could one day track employees’ lunch and bathroom breaks without their permission.

“Once they are implanted,” he warns, “it’s very hard to predict or stop a future widening of their usage.”

This is the first time a U.S.-based company has chipped its employees, but globally, the practice isn’t new. Epicenter, a Swedish startup, tagged its employees with the same technology back in 2015. So far, the program has been successful–Epicenter holds monthly events and parties where specialists can chip employees at no cost.

“People ask me, ‘Are you chipped?’ and I say, ‘Yes, why not,'” said Fredric Kaijser, Epicenter’s chief experience officer, in an interview with CNBC. “And they all get excited about privacy issues and what that means and so forth. And for me it’s just a matter of I like to try new things and just see it as more of an enabler and what that would bring into the future.”

Judging by the high number of volunteers, the workers at Three Square Market are equally willing to “try new things.” Software engineer Sam Bengston signed up right away.

“In the next five or 10 years,” he told the New York Times, “this is going to be something that isn’t scoffed at so much, or is more normal. So I like to jump on the bandwagon with these kind of things early, just to say that I have it.”

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wisconsin Tech Company Offers to Implant Microchips in its Employees appeared first on Law Street.

In early July, users of AlphaBay, one of the largest darknet marketplaces, panicked when their go-to supplier of illegal drugs, weapons, and other illicit items unexpectedly vanished from the internet. As is often the case when darknet marketplaces go down, many were wary that the moderators may have purposefully closed the site and made off with shoppers’ money. Though AlphaBay’s moderators quickly took to Reddit to assure users that they were working to restore the site, the internet panic left many wondering more about the mysterious “dark web” and its contents. What is this hidden side of the internet really about? And can any good be found in the dark? Read on to find out.

Deep Web vs. Dark Web

When you go online to browse social media, read the news, or look up directions, you’re using what’s called the “surface web.” While most of us stick to the surface web for our daily use, the truth is that it’s just a sliver of what’s available on the internet.

The deep web, which experts estimate makes up about 90 percent of the internet’s content, is comprised of all the web pages that aren’t accessible through public search engines. Library search engines, government databases, and your personal email account are all examples of pages on the deep web.

Many internet users confuse the deep web with the dark web, but the dark web is actually a tiny subsection of the deep web. It is comprised of all the hidden content existing on darknets, or encrypted networks that require use of specific software or tools to access. Darknets are specially designed to provide anonymity to users, making user presence on the dark web undetectable.

The dark web is best known to the public as a safe haven for salacious and criminal enterprises–the drug and weapons trades, child pornography, and the sale of stolen personal information, like bank accounts. But there are individuals on the dark web with nobler intentions, like whistleblowing. Wikileaks, for example, is a notorious dark web site that allows whistleblowers to anonymously upload classified information to the site. Civilians may also use darknet software to access social media in countries where sites like Facebook and Twitter are banned, or to spread news in times of censorship and political unrest.

How to Use the Dark Web

The most common way to access the dark web is using a free software called Tor, originally short for “The Onion Router,” which allows users to anonymize their web pages and their presence on the internet.

Tor was originally created by U.S. Naval Research Laboratory employees in the mid 1990s, and receives 60 percent of its funding from the U.S. government. It hides users’ IP addresses (the unique code that attaches your internet activity to your computer) by sending traffic from their computer and server to other, random points, “like anonymous bagmen trading briefcases in a parking garage,” according to Wired.

Users of Tor can access the surface web as normal, but can also browse websites that run Tor themselves–that’s where the hidden side of the internet exists. Tor websites don’t have a normal URL like Facebook.com, but instead consist of a jumble of seemingly random letters followed by “.onion,” like wlupld3ptjvsgwqw.onion for Wikileaks. This means that to access a Tor website, you most often need to know the exact web address.

Tor is working on developing its anonymity capabilities even further, Wired reported in January. Tor Project co-founder Nick Mathewson told the tech magazine that software released later this year will allow users to keep their sites completely secret, even from other Tor users.

“Someone can create a hidden service just for you that only you would know about, and the presence of that particular hidden service would be non-discoverable,” Mathewson told Wired. “As a building block, that would provide a much stronger basis for relatively secure and private systems than we’ve had before.”

Who Uses the Dark Web?

Criminals

The anonymous sale and exchange of illegal substances is responsible for most of the dark web’s notoriety. One of the most famous darknet marketplaces is the Silk Road, which was shut down in 2013, only to re-appear in various iterations. Most sites use bitcoin, rather than PayPal or credit cards, for transactions, since the e-currency allows customers to maintain their anonymity.

In June, Interpol launched a digital forensics course for wildlife crime investigators, to crack down on use of the dark web for the illegal trade of ivory and exotic animals.

Hackers have also been known to sell personal information, like login details for bank accounts or email accounts. In March 2015, thousands of active Uber account usernames and passwords were being sold for as little as $1-$5 on darknet marketplaces AlphaBay and ThinkingForward.

Dozens of hitmen are also available for hire on the dark web, but many sites, like BesaMafia, have been proven to be scams, or set up by law enforcement to catch people plotting murder.

“Normal” People

If you are unfamiliar with the dark web, you may be surprised to learn that many of its users are “Average Joes” (i.e. not internet-based arms dealers), who are interested in maintaining their internet privacy for less malicious reasons.

Politicians conducting secret deals, internet stalking victims wishing to keep their location private, and law enforcement officials investigating crimes are a large portion of the dark web’s user population. In a 2016 post on TurboFuture, blogger Dean Walsh noted the absurdity of these various populations interacting with terrorists, cybercriminals, and hackers.

“The fact that so many of the dark web’s users are enemies also leads to a strange dynamic,” Walsh writes. “I was tickled to see website security experts and criminal hackers sharing the same forums to discuss their common interests in computer security whilst hardly recognizing that they are nemeses.”

Activists and Journalists

The anonymity provided by dark web sites can also be a force for justice. Activists have been able to shed light on dire situations while avoiding detection in countries where oppressive regimes prevent civilians from using social media, or otherwise censor content posted on the internet.

Nima Fatemi, an Iranian activist and contributor to the Tor Project, taught friends and family how to use the service during a series of riots and protests in Tehran in 2009. Fatemi told Rolling Stone that Tor allowed him and others to post information about what was actually happening, while state television was “just showing photos of flowers and stuff.” “I found Tor and thought, ‘This is the tool.’ It was peace of mind,” Fatemi told Rolling Stone. “I felt it a duty because so many people outside of Iran had no idea that we were protesting.”

Organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation encourage protesters and journalists to use Tor networks to protect their identity. The non-profit news organization ProPublica recently launched a Tor version of its website, which means readers can safely read the publication’s articles undetected. A ProPublica spokesman told Wired that the development will make the website safe for users in locations like China, where heavy government censorship can affect internet content. Facebook also has a Tor version, which it says many of its users access on the regular.

“Wikileaks” Courtesy of Sean MacEntee : License (CC BY 2.0)

Terrorists?

While there is some evidence of ISIS militants and supporters using the dark web and other Tor-protected services to recruit and fund their efforts, researchers at King’s College London found relatively “little militant, extremist presence” on the dark web. Thomas Rid, one of the researchers who co-authored the paper Cryptopolitik and the Darknet, told Quartz that dark web sites are not very useful for quickly and effectively spreading propaganda.

“Hidden services are sometimes slow, and not as stable as you might hope,” Rid said. “So ease of use is not as great as it could be. There are better alternatives.”

Conclusion

When dark web activities make headlines, it’s usually for something nefarious. This criminal side will continue to be newsworthy as the NSA and FBI crack down on illegal darknet marketplaces like the Silk Road, and stolen consumer data on dark web sites. But beyond the child pornography, drug sales, and hitmen for hire, there are activists, journalists, and everyday internet users making use of the dark web. As sites like ProPublica and Facebook turn to Tor for security purposes, the lighter side of the dark web could have its moment in the sun.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unraveling the Dark Web appeared first on Law Street.

Since its recognizable logo first appeared on our phone screens in 2011, Uber has quickly risen to become ubiquitous in modern-day transportation, overtaking taxis in many cities. The ride-hailing company has cemented its status as a pillar of the sharing economy, while also battling countless lawsuits, protests, and government regulations over the years. The controversies reached a head in June 2017, when co-founder Travis Kalanick stepped down from his position as CEO. Read on for a glimpse into the events that led to Kalanick’s resignation.

Rise to Ride-Sharing Royalty

Uber’s growth as one of the world’s top ride-sharing companies was swift. It easily secured several rounds of funding, and became one of the most valuable startups worldwide. Uber has yet to go public, but is valued at $70 billion.

Uber’s impact on the market is cultural, as well as financial–the term “uberisation” has come to refer to other companies and industries that take after the company’s business model of eliminating the middleman and connecting customers directly to service providers. And, as The Economist writes, the word “uber” has become its own verb, like Facebook or Google.

Though competitors like Lyft have slowly built up steam, Uber still dominates the market. At the end of May, Uber’s U.S. market share was 77 percent, down from 84 percent earlier in the year. This decrease, experts say, is likely the effect of the seemingly endless controversies that have tainted Uber over its lifetime.

Early Disputes

Uber’s efforts to transform the transportation market have been met with resistance from the beginning. In a 2013 class-action lawsuit, a group of drivers sued Uber for its labor practices. The suit claims the drivers have been “misclassified as independent contractors and are entitled to be reimbursed for their expenses that Uber should have to pay, like for gas and vehicle maintenance.” The company agreed to settle the suit for $100 million in 2016, but a federal judge denied the settlement and the case is still ongoing.

In the U.S. and worldwide, Uber has faced major scrutiny for operating in markets without adhering to local policies and procedures that regulate cabs. In 2014, several protests against the company broke out across Europe. These protests came to a head in 2015, when taxi drivers locked down the city of Paris, blocking roads, burning tires, and attacking drivers. The drivers considered Uber to be a form of “economic terrorism.”

“London Anti-Uber Taxi Protest” Courtesy David Holt : License (CC BY 2.0)

Uber is currently banned in Italy, Hungary, Denmark, and several other nations, in addition to some U.S. cities. In August 2016, Uber sold its presence in China to competitor Didi Chuxing, freeing it up to expand in other global markets. Today, the company operates in over 80 countries.

Over the years, Uber has come under fire for funneling millions into opposition research, both in plots to push out Lyft, its primary U.S. competitor, and to fight negative press coverage by “digging up dirt” on journalists. While these scandals have tarnished Uber’s image, 2017 has been an especially turbulent year for the company.

2017: A Year of Controversy

Uber’s controversies seemed to pile up at the beginning of 2017. When President Donald Trump’s travel ban was announced in January, protesters gathered at airports nationwide. While the New York Taxi Workers’ Alliance ceased operations at JFK to participate in the protest, Uber continued picking up customers, fueling backlash from many who said the company was profiting from Islamophobia and deportation. The company later apologized, but not before the hashtag “#DeleteUber” began trending and rival company Lyft announced its support for the protesters, promising to donate $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Toxic Culture

In February, Uber engineer Susan Fowler published a blog post documenting several incidents of sexual harassment during her time with the company. The post went viral and prompted Kalanick to hire former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate the claims. In June, Holder presented the board with a report of the findings and series of recommendations to improve Uber’s workplace. One of the recommendations was to strip Kalanick of some of his power. Also in June, Uber fired 20 employees after an investigation unrelated to Holder’s revealed more evidence of bullying, harassment, and a “toxic” company culture.

Skirting the Rules

A few days after Fowler’s viral post was published, Uber was hit with a lawsuit from Waymo, a self-driving car offshoot of Alphabet, Google’s parent company. Waymo alleged that Uber stole trade and patent secrets, focusing on actions by Anthony Levandowski, a former Google engineer. Levandowski was fired from Uber in May, and a new filing in June revealed that Kalanick knew Levandowksi had possession of data from Google long before the Waymo suit was filed.

In March, The New York Times reported on Uber’s use of a technology called Greyball, which it employed primarily outside of the U.S., allowing drivers to evade local authorities in markets where the ride-hailing service had been banned. The Department of Justice launched an investigation in response.

“Travis Kalanick” Courtesy of TechCrunch : Licence (CC BY 2.0)

Kalanick’s Tarnished Image

Kalanick, as an individual, faced even more scrutiny in late February after he was caught on video in a profanity-laden argument with an Uber driver over the company’s falling fares, which the driver said made him “bankrupt.” After the video surfaced online, Kalanick publicly apologized.

“To say that I am ashamed is an extreme understatement,” Kalanick wrote in a company-wide email. “I must fundamentally change as a leader and grow up. This is the first time I’ve been willing to admit that I need leadership help and I intend to get it.”

Several years ago, Kalanick also came under fire for referring to his company as “Boob-er” in an highly-scrutinized GQ interview, saying that his desirability among women has increased since starting Uber.

Kalanick Resigns

A week before officially resigning, Kalanick announced an indefinite leave of absence from Uber leadership. This was in response to Holder’s recommendation that the company re-evaluate some of Kalanick’s responsibilities or distribute them among other members of leadership. In a memo to employees, Kalanick also said the leave of absence would give him time to grieve for his mother, who was killed in a boating accident weeks earlier.

Breaking: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick memo to employees on his leave of absence. Full text. @NPR pic.twitter.com/tCE4bZ2C0u

— Aarti Shahani (@aarti411) June 13, 2017

The temporary departure did not satisfy Uber’s investors, however. On June 20, two venture capitalists presented Kalanick with a list of demands, including his resignation. The letter was from five of Uber’s major investors, including Benchmark and the mutual fund giant Fidelity Investments. By the end of the day, his departure was made public.

Kalanick’s resignation isn’t the first indication of instability among the company’s top brass. Including the position of CEO, three of Uber’s eight leadership positions are currently vacant. Several other high-level positions and other leaders are also currently under scrutiny, and four out of seven board members, including the board’s only two women, are relatively new to the company.

What’s Next for Uber?

In spite of the recent controversies, Uber is continuing to expand and reshape its image. Uber added an in-app tipping function in June, much to the delight of drivers and customers, and the company’s self-driving projects are continuing to improve, even in the wake of the Waymo lawsuit. The company also streamlined its app to allow users to hail rides for others more easily, letting users call an Uber for a drunk friend or aging relative.

Unfortunately, the scandals haven’t stopped altogether. Less than 10 days after Kalanick’s resignation, civil rights activists filed suit against Uber in federal court for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act and the District of Columbia’s Human Rights Act by not accommodating passengers with non-collapsible wheelchairs.

Conclusion

Even with the departure of Kalanick, the rest of this year could be make or break for Uber. Kalanick still retains a seat on Uber’s board, as well as voting rights in company decisions. Some think he could be leaving the door open to return to the helm in the future. Murmurs of Uber going public are also ongoing. Uber’s market share decrease and 2016 earnings loss could still hold up an IPO, but economists and experts think Kalanick’s resignation is a good sign for the company’s public trading potential. All eyes will remain on Uber to see if the ride-sharing giant can continue to grow, while transforming its leadership and company culture.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber in Turmoil: How Several Scandals Led to the Departure of its CEO appeared first on Law Street.

Last year, JD.com, China’s version of Amazon, got its business off the ground–literally. The company launched a fleet of delivery drones that have been bringing packages to buyers within minutes. In one province, the company just received government approval to use drone delivery for packages weighing more than a ton, according to Vox. This form of delivery has been especially effective for JD.com in delivering packages to rural areas. The drones are fully automated and follow set paths. Rather than delivering straight to the customer’s door, they drop orders at a specific site in rural villages, where locally-based contractors then deliver the packages.

Faster delivery that reaches more people–it seems like a logical step for American companies. So why aren’t delivery drones flooding our skies? Read on to find out.

What’s Stopping the Drones?

The idea of drone delivery isn’t a new concept to American business leaders. Back in 2013, Amazon chief executive Jeff Bezos discussed the possibility of drone delivery in a “60 Minutes” interview. Much of his segment is already dated–Bezos talked about the very beginnings of developing original television programming for Amazon Studios–however, he said drone delivery was only a few years away. American customers are still waiting on the first air delivery and Prime Air’s website does not yet list an official launch date for the service to be available to buyers.

“We will deploy when and where we have the regulatory support needed to safely realize our vision,” the website reads. “We’re excited about this technology and one day using it to deliver packages to customers around the world in 30 minutes or less.”

The biggest barrier is government regulation. The Federal Aviation Administration has historically been hazy on drone policy. The department has come under fire for not establishing clear privacy or safety laws for drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles.

In 2015, the FAA required drone users to register in a federal database. Last month, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. overturned that regulation, ruling that it did not have legal standing over those flying drones for recreational, not commercial, purposes.

With regard to commercial drone usage, the FAA’s guidelines, set last June, do not permit aerial package delivery. According to the regulations, drones used for commercial purposes must remain in the line of sight of the pilot. Tech companies and others interested in commercial drone usage are lobbying the FAA to change those regulations. Amazon itself has several lobbyists working on this goal.

Going Global

To get around these federal roadblocks, Amazon has moved across the pond to test its delivery. Last summer, the company gained approval from the U.K. to test drones in the country’s airspace. Just a few months later, in a private trial, the company made its first drone delivery–an Amazon FireStick and a package of popcorn–to a customer in Cambridge.

In New Zealand, Domino’s is experimenting with drone delivery pizzas. And an American startup based in California is using the vehicles to transport medical supplies to Rwanda. Earlier this month, Amazon announced the creation of a drone testing center in Paris, which will work with the centers in the U.S., U.K., Austria, and Israel.

The delay in drone use in the U.S. is frustrating–to consumers, companies, and drone-use advocates. Timothy Carone, a professor at the University of Notre Dame and expert on automation (he co-authored the book “Future Automation–Changes to Lives and Businesses”), told Wired in December that it is “unfortunate, almost tragic” that Amazon is piloting drone delivery in the U.K., rather than in the U.S.

“The FAA, like most government agencies, works on times scales that are increasingly slower than the evolution of new businesses and technologies,” Carone said. “Soon it will make decisions on technologies that are already outdated.”

Since then, Prime Air has only made one delivery on U.S. soil–at an invite-only tech conference in March–and the delivery was pre-approved by the FAA. The convenience store 7-Eleven has had mild success in delivering packages via drone, but all of its trials have been within the pilot’s line of site, to customers within a mile of the Reno, Nevada store.

Other Concerns

Beyond the regulatory barriers, there are a multitude of other concerns and problems that Amazon and other companies will have to address before drone delivery becomes commonplace in the U.S.

Air safety and environmental concerns are top priority. To ensure that drones can coexist peacefully with other aircrafts, avoid crashing into tall buildings and construction cranes, and aren’t hazardous to birds, trees, or bodies of water, companies that wish to use drones will have to work closely with air traffic control, even developing new systems. Amazon has said that data from its trials in the U.K. are helping to develop and improve air traffic control systems that deal with drones in both the U.S., through NASA, and in the U.K. And there is, of course, the very real fear that drone deliveries will wipe out thousands of driving and packaging jobs.

On top of these challenges, leadership at Prime Air has seen some turnover. The co-founder of the project, Daniel Buchmueller, quietly left Amazon at the end of last year, at what seems to be a pivotal time in the company’s pursuit of aerial delivery.

What’s Next For Drone Policy?

President Donald Trump’s actions on drones have largely dealt with warfare. In a controversial decision in March, Trump handed authority to launch drone strikes to the CIA. Under President Barack Obama, only the military had the power to launch strikes, making the operations more transparent since the Pentagon has to report on all airstrikes.

The new presidential administration has had little to say on commercial and recreational drone usage. But last week, the White House backed proposed legislation that would allow the government to track and destroy drones flying over U.S. soil that it deems a security threat. This is a security and privacy issue–the administration is concerned about the ability of terrorists to use drones to carry weapons or conduct surveillance.

The draft document warns that government activities, like wildland firefighting, search and rescue operations, and border control, could be threatened by the commercial availability of unmanned aircraft systems. According to the document, drones are difficult to detect and monitor, but the technology available to do so may not be currently legal for such purposes.

“Some of the most promising technical countermeasures for detecting and mitigating [unmanned aircraft systems] may be construed to be illegal under certain laws that were passed when UAS were unforeseen,” the document reads. “These laws include statutes governing electronic communications, access to protected computers, and interference with civil aircraft.”

It is unclear how legislation like this, should it pass, would affect the ability of companies like Amazon to use drones for delivery.

“An Emerging Technology”

Elaine Chao, the new transportation secretary, spoke briefly on drones for commercial use during her confirmation hearings. She has not proposed any changes to policy as of yet, but emphasized the importance of safety regulations in any drone laws.

“Safety will continue to be the primary objective,” Chao said. “Regulatory decisions should be rooted in analysis derived from sound science and data.”

“Farewell Reception Honoring Hudson Distinguished Fellow and Secretary of Transportation-designate Elaine L. Chao” Courtesy of Hudson Institute: License (CC BY 2.0)

Chao also acknowledged that the government’s “failure to pace with emerging technologies” is causing U.S. transport to fall behind other countries.

“It’s an emerging technology, there are those who see the benefits of commercializing them for various uses, it’s transforming the way we work, the way we do commerce,” she said. “There are also those who are very concerned about privacy issues, security issues, and again for going forward with an emerging technology as important as this with such vast implications for our future, I think we need to talk about it, we need to have again a national consensus for where we’re going.”

Conclusion

With JD.com’s success with drone delivery, and Amazon’s fourth international development center opening soon, everyone from consumers to CEOs are anxiously awaiting improvements to federal policy that will make drone delivery a reality for Americans. Some say the key lies in redefining drones so that they are not considered aircrafts and subject to the same regulations as jetliners.

Even without delivery, the presence of drones themselves is only going to become more prominent as the months go on. The FAA estimated earlier this year that the number of drones used for recreational purposes will increase from 1.1 million in 2016 to more than 3.5 million over the next five years. For commercial drones, the fleet could grow from 42,000 in 2016 to as many as 1.6 million by the end of 2021, depending on how quickly regulations catch up.

With numbers like that, it’s understandable that American consumers are getting antsy waiting for drone-dropped packages to appear on their doorsteps.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Are the Drones?: How Red Tape is Slowing Down Drone Delivery appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, Rob Kardashian published explicit photos of ex-fiancee Blac Chyna on Twitter and Instagram. Now, lawyers and experts say he could face criminal charges for revenge porn.

On Wednesday, Kardashian uploaded a series of posts to Instagram, accompanied by nude photos of Chyna, accusing her of cheating on him, taking advantage of him financially, and using drugs and alcohol in the presence of their seven-month-old daughter, Dream Renee Kardashian.

Instagram shut down Kardashian’s account almost immediately, but the reality star quickly moved to Twitter to continue the rant.

I truly thought Chyna wanted to be a family and that’s why I was so loyal to her but I learned my lesson and everyone else was right

— ROBERT KARDASHIAN (@robkardashian) July 5, 2017

The public feud quickly entranced all of Twitter, with the least-famous Kardashian sib’s tweets receiving hundreds of thousands of likes and retweets. “Poor Dream” even became a trending topic along with both of her parent’s names.

Chyna used social media to respond to Kardashian’s attacks, sharing since-deleted accusations to her Snapchat story that Kardashian physically abused her.

“Rob u did all this but u beat me up and try act it never happen!!!!!” Chyna wrote on Snapchat. “U put hand on me I swear on god!!!! On my kids but I’m supposed to be quiet because you’re a Kardashian.”

Kardashian and Chyna’s tumultuous relationship has been the primary source of their fame over the past year and a half. The pair first went public as a couple in January 2016, and Kardashian proposed three months later. Soon after, the couple announced they were expecting a child. Chyna has a child with rapper Tyga, who dated Kardashian’s sister, Kylie Jenner. Part of Kardashian’s Twitter post accused Chyna of having their child “out of spite” over Jenner’s relationship with Tyga.

Reports surfaced in February that the on-and-off-again couple had called off their engagement. The couple’s unlikely pairing and tumultuous relationship was the basis of their reality show spin-off “Rob & Chyna.” The show has been renewed for a second season, but it’s unclear how this development will affect it.

Was it Revenge Porn?

The nude photos Kardashian posted online without Chyna’s consent could be considered revenge porn, especially if Kardashian’s intent was to “cause substantial emotional distress or humiliation” to Chyna. Revenge porn is illegal in two-thirds of the U.S., including in California, where both celebrities reside. The misdemeanor crime carries a penalty of up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Revenge porn is also known as non-consensual pornography, or cyberexploitation, since it does not always involve an act of “revenge,” like in Kardashian’s case. Several instances have involved hackers leaking nude photos of victims, which can also fall under the revenge porn laws.

Though no charges have been officially brought as of yet, several experts have said Kardashian’s posts were most definitely an act of revenge porn.

Chyna’s lawyer Lisa Bloom, who represented actress Mischa Barton in a similar case, warned Kardashian on Twitter that revenge porn is a crime and a form of violence.

Note to Rob Kardashian: revenge porn is a crime. And in my Mischa Barton case judge agreed it’s a form of domestic violence. Knock it off.

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 5, 2017

“It’s disgusting,” Bloom told the Washington Post. “It’s a very modern way of being misogynistic.”

“The main point of it is that even if Chyna sent him nude photos, if she didn’t want them posted publicly, the law protects her,” Bloom told The Post.

Carrie Goldberg, an attorney who specializes in sexual privacy and started a firm dedicated to the topic, told the Post that Kardashian’s “slut shaming” posts show that he intended to harm Chyna.

“With the accompanying words, there can be no misgivings about his intent,” Goldberg said.

Chyna’s lawyers are reportedly exploring “all legal remedies and protections available,” and are pursuing a restraining order against Kardashian.

I represent Blac Chyna. I just gave Rob Kardashian notice that we’ll be in court Monday seeking restraining orders against him. More to come

— Lisa Bloom (@LisaBloom) July 7, 2017

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rob Kardashian Could Face Revenge Porn Charges, Experts Say appeared first on Law Street.

In 2014, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the social networking giant was making a transformative new acquisition: Oculus VR. Oculus is a virtual reality company that aims to redefine digital entertainment by taking its users into a completely virtual world. However, the VR company may have to completely redesign its coding platform and remove some VR headsets from the market due to a lawsuit from prominent video game maker ZeniMax.

A jury Awarded ZeniMax $500 million in February, but now the company is seeking an injunction to block Facebook from selling the Oculus Rift headset on account of alleged copyright violations. According to the February ruling, former employee and Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey, violated his non-disclosure agreement and committed copyright infringement and false designation when he took code from ZeniMax to develop the Oculus VR technology. If ZeniMax does not receive a permanent injunction from the judge, the company wants a 20 percent cut of all Oculus sales over the next 10 years.

According to Bloomberg, the likelihood that the product will be pulled from the market is not very high, even though the two companies are competitors. Historically, judges have preferred financial compensation over ordering companies to take products off the shelves. The judge in this case–Ed Kinkeade, a district court judge in Northern Texas–encouraged both sides to reach a settlement and avoid a trial when they presented their cases on Tuesday.

Facebook is strongly resisting efforts to stop Oculus sales. The company’s lawyers argue that placing a ban on the products would put unfair hardship on Oculus, only benefit ZeniMax, and “detract from the public’s enjoyment” of virtual reality technology. Furthermore, in a court filing on June 15, Facebook argued that the required payout was unfair and said that $50 million would be more than reasonable.

Facebook has a lot at stake with this decision. Not only did the company spend $2 billion to purchase Oculus in 2014, but according to Bloomberg, the virtual reality and augmented reality industry may be worth an estimated $40 billion in 2020.

Virtual reality and augmented reality technologies are continuing to grow within the tech world. For example, in Apple’s upcoming iOS 11 update includes an ARkit for developers to incorporate AR into their apps. Apple forged a partnership with Ikea to use ARkit, which will let users see how the company’s furniture would look in their homes. The possibilities in VR and AR are seemingly endless and Facebook does not want to miss out.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Lawsuit Seeks to Block Facebook from Selling Oculus VR Products appeared first on Law Street.

The 2016 presidential election was noteworthy not just because of its outcome, but also for the extent to which both parties used technical data collection behind-the-scenes to secure victories in swing states. Just last week, a cyber risk analyst stumbled onto a trove of that gathered data, collected on 198 million Americans, on an unprotected server.

The analyst, Chris Vickery, an employee of the cyber security startup UpGuard, came across the 1.1 terabytes of data on an Amazon cloud server, which wasn’t password protected and was accessible to anyone with the URL address. According to UpGuard, it took Vickery several days to download the extensive dataset, which may have been left open and exposed for 10 to 14 days.

UpGuard is calling this leak the “largest known data exposure of its kind,” and confirmed that the discovered content includes names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, and indications of individuals’ ethnicities and religions. Voters’ political views on hot-button campaign issues such as fossil fuels and taxes were also minutely recorded, likely for future micro-targeted campaigns.

Currently downloading what is, basically, the home address of every Trump supporter.

Understand the cloud before you upload to it. pic.twitter.com/nRPb98jwoP

— Chris Vickery (@VickerySec) June 13, 2017

The information was collected by GOP data firm Deep Root Analytics, one of three data firms hired by the RNC to help Donald Trump win the presidential election.

The firm acknowledged that the data was theirs on Friday and released a statement apologizing for the breach.

Deep Root Analytics CEO Brent McGoldrick said the company takes “full responsibility” for the leak. He added that the mistake was likely due to “a recent change in asset access settings since June 1.”

Although much of the data collected by Deep Root Analytics is available online through more innocuous sources, many have been quick to analyze the leak’s potential cyber security ramifications.

“That such an enormous national database could be created and hosted online, missing even the simplest of protections against the data being publicly accessible, is troubling,” UpGuard said on their website.

This leak also comes at a time when the U.S. elections and elections in other western nations have been the targets of increasingly aggressive cyber attacks.

“This is deeply troubling,” Privacy International’s policy officer Frederike Kaltheuner told BBC News. “This is not just sensitive, it’s intimate information, predictions about people’s behavior, opinions, and beliefs that people have never decided to disclose to anyone.”

While this leak could have been much more damaging and revealed more secretive information, experts say this should be a cautionary warning. If companies don’t make cyber security a priority, individuals may have to worry a lot more the next time a leak occurs.

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Accidental Data Leak Exposes 198 Million Americans’ Personal Information appeared first on Law Street.

After over a year in the spotlight as an important member of Donald Trump’s family, son-in-law Jared Kushner has finally made his first public remarks since becoming an adviser to his father-in-law. So, after plenty of speculation, the world now knows what his voice sounds like.

Kushner, Ivanka Trump’s husband, has gained unprecedented access to the White House for an in-law. Since President Donald Trump took office, Kushner has been given access to the National Security Council and confidential information. He has also been tasked with brokering a peace deal in the Middle East and acting as a diplomat in talks with Mexico, according to the Washington Post.

Yet America was still left wondering what Kushner sounded like. Even “SNL” made fun of Kushner’s silence in this clip from April.

Comedian John Oliver joined the fun on one of his shows: “For someone with the amount of power that he has, have you ever heard him speak? Seriously, what does his voice sound like? You don’t know, do you?”

On Monday, Kushner made his first recent public speech at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. Behind a podium, Kushner spoke about the Trump Administration’s commitment to technological modernization. Two months ago Kushner was tapped to head the Office of American Innovation, which attempts to use the private sector to modernize government, according to the Washington Post.

As Kushner spoke on technological modernization, some people on Twitter joked that Kushner’s voice itself should be a bit more futuristic.

Kind of disappointed. Jared Kushner’s making his first public remarks and he hasn’t been hiding a cool Darth Vader voice. At all.

— Karen DaltonBeninato (@kbeninato) June 19, 2017

Others on Twitter compared his voice to actor Michael Cera, who is often mocked for his young, high-pitched voice.

In the tragicomedy film version of the Trump era, Jared Kushner will be played by Michael Cera.

— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) June 19, 2017

Many had fun at his expense, but others took note that the disparaging comments about Kushner’s voice may come from him not fitting a “masculine” ideal. There was plenty of fodder to criticize as people mocked Kushner’s “feminine” voice on Twitter.

There is so much that’s fair to critique Kushner on that’s fair. But, making fun of his voice hurts so many men and boys for no reason.

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) June 19, 2017

But does how Kushner’s voice sound actually matter? In the first few months of his presidency, Trump has incorporated his family into more power positions than prior administrations, so Kushner’s actions matter more than his voice. What really matters is how Kushner can use his powerful platform to influence his wife and father-in-law when it comes to technological advancement or whatever other important issue he’s tasked with.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The World Finally Gets to Hear Jared Kushner’s Voice appeared first on Law Street.

Megyn Kelly’s exclusive interview with Infowars.com head Alex Jones aired on Sunday night on NBC News, but ultimately faced more criticism than praise.

The much-anticipated interview drew 3.5 million viewers, according to Nielsen ratings, putting it even with a rerun of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” and two million viewers behind a rerun of “60 Minutes.” Kelly’s two previous shows earned 0.7 and 4.9 million viewers respectively.

Kelly and NBC faced plenty of criticism prior to the airing from those upset with the national platform given to Alex Jones, a famous right-wing personality who is often accused of spreading false facts and conspiracy theories. He is perhaps most infamous for claiming that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax.

Critics accused Kelly of promoting Jones, a man who many blame for spreading fake news and riling up his angry, right-wing supporters. These complaints were only fueled by the fact that the interview aired on Fathers Day. Many pled with NBC to not air the segment, but only NBC affiliates in Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook shooting occurred, elected not to show the interview.

Kelly, a former Fox News host, has long been under public scrutiny and her transition to NBC has made her more mainstream. Many at NBC put their faith in Kelly, believing she was destined to be a “super star” but one anonymous television executive believes her ceiling is as a “cable star,” according to CNN. So, many were upset that she was using her new platform to normalize Jones and his radical, oftentimes racist, theories.

Plenty of advertisers withdrew their sponsorship in response to the interview, including JPMorgan Chase, according to The Hill. On a local scale, several ads were pulled from the air, according to CNN. JPMorgan Chase CMO Kristin Lemkau “requested that its local and digital ads not be placed adjacent to any broadcast or stream of the segment,” according to Jezebel.

As an advertiser, I’m repulsed that @megynkelly would give a second of airtime to someone who says Sandy Hook and Aurora are hoaxes. Why? https://t.co/luwyCwP7Ti

— Kristin Lemkau (@KLemkau) June 12, 2017

In order to make up for this issue, NBC ran several public service announcements, normally reserved for less desirable time slots, according to Variety. Additionally, there were an unusual number of NBC promotions and repeated advertisements during the broadcast, indicative of the network’s scramble to fill ad breaks.

Those upset with the interview were emboldened when Jones released audio of Kelly promising him that the interview wouldn’t be a “gotcha hit piece” and that it would leave “the left” impressed. But it’s traditionally against journalistic ethics to promise interview subjects that you will make them look as good as possible.

In the end, Kelly’s interview with Jones may have caused more trouble for NBC than it was worth. Now it will matter if these ramifications will have a long term effect. Will big advertisers, like JPMorgan Chase, return to NBC and Kelly’s show specifically? As for Kelly’s ratings, they peaked with her pilot episode and haven’t come close to those levels since.

NBC expected big things out of Kelly when she moved from Fox, but after a tumultuous first month she may be in more trouble than expected. Nowhere to go but up…right?

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Megyn Kelly’s Interview with Alex Jones Sparks Negative Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

Just a few years ago, it seemed like you couldn’t watch a sporting event without seeing advertisements for daily fantasy sports leagues like Draft Kings or Fan Duel. Before the 2015 NFL season these companies spent nearly $500 million on advertisements, but after consumer concerns arose, they cut their advertising budgets.

After multiple lawsuits against the industry, the companies are fighting for their existence amid accusations that they fall under the same legal category as traditional online gambling.

A new study from Rutgers University on gambling in New Jersey concludes that daily fantasy sports (DFS) users exhibit highly similar habits as those who engage in traditional forms of gambling. It also finds that there is a high crossover between the two activities. This is bad news for an industry that has tried to distance itself from gambling in order to win lawsuits and continue operation. The study’s authors wrote:

A majority of activities listed in this study are historically classified and widely accepted as ‘gambling,’ because they involve spending money on activities with an uncertain outcome and the possibility of winning or losing that can result in harm. However, other activities elude precise classification and are largely context and jurisdiction‐dependent.

The key distinction for these companies is whether their games are based on skill, not chance. This stems from the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) passed by Congress in 2006, which makes a distinction between the two forms of gambling and outlawed only games that require no skill.

Fan Duel, which opened in 2009, was the first major daily fantasy sports company before Draft Kings, its main competitor, opened in 2011. First, they experienced massive growth and profits before running into legal problems.

To learn more about daily fantasy sports check out Law Street’s Explainer.

These companies, and their users, must prove to the courts that they are winning massive amounts because of skill and hard work, not pure luck like traditional gambling games.

Those who argue that DFS is skill-based believe it’s clear the games aren’t random because of the overwhelming success of experienced players. While normal gambling games such as roulette or slots don’t favor someone with experience, these games show that the most winners have dedicated themselves to the craft.

While many users casually play the games, others have dedicated themselves to the game, and some manage to earn six-figure payouts in just one month.

In fact, 1 percent of players win around 91 percent of the profits from DFS  sites, according to a study by gambling expert Ed Miller. Miller argues this is evidence of a surplus of skill exhibited by the top bettors, whom he refers to as “sharks,” who feast on the “minnows,” which are novice gamblers who lose over 50 percent of their investments.

On the other hand, those who argue the game is just gambling cite evidence that knowledge of the actual sports doesn’t help win the game. Instead, it’s just about algorithms, gaming the system, and luck, they argue.

Even former Florida governor and presidential candidate Jeb Bush called it, “day trading without any of the regulation” during one debate in the 2016 campaign. The lack of oversight is yet another reason many hope for government intervention in the industry.

In recent years, the industry has faced lawsuits across America while states such as Nevada and New York barred them and defined them as gambling. In 2015 both states booted daily fantasy sports companies from their states.

But in late 2016, New York and Nevada compromised with the companies.

New York’s ban was particularly impactful because the Fan Duel headquarters is located in the Big Apple. However, Governor Andrew Cuomo later signed a law in classifying DFS as a “game of skill,” which allowed them to continue business in the state.

Meanwhile, Nevada decided that the companies need a gambling license to operate, but only one company–USFantasy–has applied and received a license as of last November, according to the Legal Sports Report. The policy means that daily fantasy sports is considered gambling in the state, allowing DFS companies to operate under the same regulation as traditional gambling. However, given the industry’s efforts to identify itself as a game of skill, many DFS companies have been unwilling to participate with a gambling classification.

In Texas, state Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion last year equating DFS with illegal gambling, which prompted lawmakers to craft a bill formally classifying DFS as games of skill. State Rep. Richard Peña Raymond, a fantasy football lover himself, decided to sign onto the bill after speaking with constituents who worried about government interference, he told the Texas Tribune.

So while the Rutgers study finds that DFS users also tend to engage in traditional gambling–and are susceptible to similar gambling and drug-related problems–many states are working with these companies to continue operation.

The new study doesn’t necessarily mean that legal changes are coming down the road, but it furthers research that will help inform future decisions. The legality of DFS is a complex issue that must weigh the economic benefits of gambling for local taxes and the negative impact that it can have on individuals and their families.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Daily Fantasy Sports a Form of Online Gambling? appeared first on Law Street.

At the 2017 WorldWide Developers Conference in San Jose, California, Apple executives gave their first preview of their new software update: iOS 11. The update will include over a dozen new tools and platforms, including a new Augmented Reality feature, an enhancement to Apple Pay, and the addition of a stylus that can be used in conjunction with the iPad Pro.

But one new feature stood out above the rest. During the keynote address, Apple introduced a Do Not Disturb add-on feature that will prevent an iPhone user from receiving notifications of any kind while behind the wheel. This includes texts, social media notifications, and news alerts. The add-on uses bluetooth and wi-fi doppler effect to determine if the device is moving within a car.

If it detects the specific type of movement, it prevents the person from receiving any notifications. The add-on must be turned on voluntarily and it can be turned off if you are in a vehicle and are not driving. And if you are worried that you won’t be able to communicate? The add-on will send out an automated reply to people who text you while you’re driving to inform them that you will answer them once you reach your destination.

“We think this is going to be a really important step for safety in the car,” said Craig Federighi, Senior Vice President of Software Engineering at WWDC.

The update won’t be released until the fall, but already people within Silicon Valley and the tech industry are praising the Do Not Disturb feature.

The importance of an Apple taking distracted driving seriously can’t be overstated

— Matt Peckham (@mattpeckham) June 5, 2017

“Do not disturb while driving” will save lives.

— Benedict Evans (@BenedictEvans) June 5, 2017

Do Not Disturb while driving turns the screen off automatically. This will save lives. And probably get turned off by the teens but good.

— Matthew Panzarino (@panzer) June 5, 2017

Distracted driving has been a serious problem in the age of smartphones. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in 2015 there was approximately 391,000 traffic accidents and approximately 3,477 deaths as a result of distracted driving. The risk level dramatically increases among youth drivers. The National Security Council reported that teen drivers are four times more likely than adult drivers to get into an accident when talking or texting on the phone while driving.

Smartphone usage among millennials in general has also exploded. According to a 2016 Nielsen study, of those who own a mobile phone between the ages of 18-24, 98 percent have a smartphone. Furthermore, 43 percent of those who do have a smartphone have an Apple iOS device.

The announcement follows a recent string of attempted regulation of distracted driving. In New York, the legislature is currently mulling over whether to implement a “textalyzer,” a device that would allow officers at the scene of an accident to access the drivers’ phones to see whether they were using their phones while driving.

The legislation has been criticized for allowing law enforcement to breach people’s private cell phone information for only minor incidents. However, the legislation is currently under review and similar legislation is being proposed in Tennessee, New Jersey, and Chicago.

Whether Apple’s voluntary feature will be useful or not remains to be seen, but with nine people dying a day from distracted driving, it is certainly trending in the right direction.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Apple Takes a Stance on Texting and Driving with iOS 11 appeared first on Law Street.

Social media has the ability to bring together people from all walks of life to interact. But the ensuing interactions aren’t always positive–the ubiquity of social media has opened up plenty of people to harassment. While online harassment can include a variety of forms–including cyberbullying, cyberstalking and revenge porn–there are other forms of online harassment that you may start to hear more about moving forward: doxxing and swatting. Read on to learn more about these forms of online harassment, some of the more prominent victims of them, and the potential legal ramifications in the United States.

What are Doxxing and Swatting?

Doxxing 

Doxxing, which comes from the word “document,” is the release of an online user’s private information, including but not limited to photo, address, birthdate, and Social Security number. This release is usually done for a particular purpose–for example, to reveal the anonymity of a person online. Someone who operates under their own name–say, a journalist–could also be doxxed, if their personal information is disseminated to the internet. And it’s not just individuals who can be doxxed, as the term can be applied to group membership. But no matter who is doxxed, it’s safe to say that someone who doxxes someone else intends to cause some sort of harm.

Swatting 

Swatting is another form of online harassment, which can be sometimes (but not always) connected to doxxing. Swatting involves falsely reporting an emergency, in the hopes that a “swat” team or other law enforcement officers show up to the location that is being targeted. According to the National 911 program:

The calling party will often report they are involved or nearby as a witness to a home invasion, active shooter, or hostage situation, attempting to muster the largest response possible. Often, the law enforcement response is substantial, with police confronting the unsuspecting victims at gunpoint, only to learn that there is no real emergency.

Those who attempt to cause a swatting incident use several techniques, including: caller ID spoofing, TTY relay technologies, and social engineering.

Swatting is usually done with the intent of causing fear in the subject, or occasionally as a cruel prank.

What are some real-life examples of doxxing and swatting?

There have been many high-profile examples of both doxxing and swatting. From politicians to celebrities to journalists, it’s become an increasingly common practice. It’s also important to note that doxxing and swatting aren’t practices limited to one particular ideology, political party, or group. During the 2016 election, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton supporters accused each other of the practices, whether those claims were substantiated or not.

Here are a couple of examples of each:

Doxxing: Anonymous 

Anonymous, the well-known group of “hacktivists,” has frequently doxxed various individuals it has decided to attack. Perhaps most notably, Anonymous made headlines in 2015 when it released a long list of Ku Klux Klan members. The list included alleged members and sympathizers’ real names, as well as their social media accounts.

Doxxing: GamerGate

In 2014 the GamerGate controversy broke, leading to online harassment for some women in the video game industry. One relatively common practice was doxxing–for example Brianna Wu, a female game developer who is now running for Congress and was targeted during the controversy, was doxxed. Other women involved in the gaming industry were doxxed as well, including Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Some tangentially related figures, like actress Felicia Day, were also doxxed. Day’s personal information was released after she wrote an essay about her opinion on GamerGate.

Swatting: Ted Lieu 

Congressman Ted Lieu, who currently represents the 33rd District of California, was swatted when he was a state senator. When he was swatted, Lieu had recently introduced a bill that would actually increase penalties for anyone who engaged in swatting behavior. In April 2013, the police received a call from someone pretending to be Lieu, who claimed he had shot his wife. Lieu was actually out but his wife, Betty, was in the house. Police went to the house and made Betty and their nanny exit the house with their hands up.

Swatting: Celebrities

A number of celebrities have been swatted, perhaps most famously Lil Wayne. In March 2015, an anonymous caller called the police and claimed that four people had been shot at his house in Miami Beach. Miley Cyrus was swatted in 2012, after reports of an armed kidnapper and shooting at her California home. Ashton Kutcher and Justin Bieber were both swatted by a 12-year-old Southern California boy in 2012. Dozens of other celebrities have been victim to swatting, including Simon Cowell, multiple members of the Jenner/Kardashian clan, Rihanna, Tom Cruise, Chris Brown, Clint Eastwood, and Taylor Swift.

Laws Against Doxxing and Swatting

Whether or not doxxing is technically illegal is somewhat up for debate. Most countries don’t have laws that specifically prohibit doxxing, although there are some that have codified it. In the UK in 2016, doxxing was explicitly added to a list of behaviors that can be prosecuted. But in most places, doxxing can be prosecuted only if it’s deemed to fall under another kind of criminal behavior, such as harassment. In cases where a person’s private information, like a Social Security number, is doxxed, it could constitute identity theft. That being said, it’s very difficult to prosecute people for doxxing because it is so often done under the cloud of anonymity. Sometimes it happens across state or country lines. At the end of the day, it’s a tough issue to prosecute.

The legal lines when it comes to swatting are slightly more clearly defined. For one, making false reports to police officers are illegal in many places. And plenty of people have been prosecuted for their role. Individual states, including California, have specifically implemented anti-swatting laws–it was while working on those laws that Lieu was actually swatted himself.

In 2015, Representative Katherine Clark (D-MA) introduced legislation that would have made swatting expressly illegal in Congress–the Interstate Swatting Hoax Act. In this bipartisan effort, Democrat Clark was joined by Republican Representative Pat Meehan of Pennsylvania. Clark’s office published a release that explained the dangers of swatting and pointed out that it’s actually quite costly:

The FBI estimates 400 swatting attacks occur every year. Some attacks, however, have been reported to cost local law enforcement agencies as much as $100,000.  The most serious cost of these attacks is the danger they pose to emergency responders, innocent victims, and their families. Swatting attacks have resulted in injury to law enforcement officers, heart attacks, and serious injury to victims.

The bill didn’t end up making it to a vote but perhaps unsurprisingly, Clark herself was swatted in 2016. An anonymous call made to the local police claimed that there was an active shooter at her home.

However, like with doxxing, it’s very difficult to determine who the perpetrator of a swatting crime is. In general, doxxing and swatting are versions of harassment that require some sort of technological sophistication to be able to pull off. That makes it difficult to identify, arrest, and prosecute suspects.

Conclusion

Doxxing and swatting are just two examples of the kind of harassment made possible by the internet. But while both wouldn’t be possible without the internet, they can lead to real world consequences. For example, an emotional video went viral in 2015 where video game live-streamer named Joshua Peters described how when he was the victim of a swatting, police aimed a gun at his 10-year-old brother who happened to open the door. Given that SWAT raids can lead to officers mistakenly shooting someone, or shooting someone for a relatively minor infraction, it’s not impossible to imagine that swatting could turn deadly for a victim. While it’s hard to prosecute doxxing and swatting, they are clear markers that online harassment doesn’t just affect us online.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Doxxing and Swatting: New Frontiers in Online Harassment appeared first on Law Street.

For the first three months of 2017, Uber has been mired in controversy. Many have attributed the strife to the company’s mistreatment of its employees, influenced by its toxic “bro” culture and iffy moral compass. While it’s easy to brush Uber’s woes off as growing pains for a burgeoning Silicon Valley tech company, its web controversies seem to point to bigger problems with leadership.

Compounding Controversies

Back in January, during the weekend of the first travel ban and successive protests, the company garnered harsh criticism for turning off its surge pricing for rides to New York’s JFK Airport. The opportunistic move prompted people to delete the app in favor of its competitor Lyft.

Shortly after that, Uber’s CEO, Travis Kalanick, left President Donald Trump’s economic advisory council amidst criticism from the public and Uber’s own employees. The company was also sued by Google for allegedly stealing a key component in self-driving car technology. Then in late February, Kalanick was caught on video arguing with a driver over Uber’s fares.

Most recently, Uber initiated an internal investigation into sexual harassment and discrimination allegations lobbed at the company. The investigation was opened after Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer, wrote a blog post outlining her disturbing experience at the company with an anonymous male executive who propositioned her for sex, prompting several female employees to also come forward.

Multiple company executives have since resigned. While Uber has reacted quickly to all of these controversies, the company’s responses have been either met with criticism or overshadowed by yet another controversy.

Uber CEO Seeks Help

Following the embarrassing squabble with one of his drivers, Kalanick admitted that he needs to “fundamentally change as a leader and grow up.” As a result, Uber announced that Kalanick was seeking to hire “leadership help.”

In early March, Uber announced that this “leadership help” would come in the form of a new COO. But the search for this position appears to have hit a snag with the news of president Jeff Jones’ resignation and a rumors of a “toxic” company culture, with Kalanick at the helm. Jones’ hiring was heavily publicized by Uber, and his departure undoubtedly adds complications to Uber’s future hiring plans.

In a statement released to Recode, who first broke the story of his departure, Jones said:

I joined Uber because of its Mission, and the challenge to build global capabilities that would help the company mature and thrive long-term.

It is now clear, however, that the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber, and I can no longer continue as president of the ride sharing business.

Dissatisfied Drivers and Changing the Company’s Culture

Aside from the resignations and sexual assault allegations from employees, Uber is also dealing with more crises regarding drivers’ dissatisfaction with wages. Uber drivers in some states are not allowed to accept tips and Uber’s attempt to strike down a Seattle law that allows its drivers to unionize proved fruitless.

Yesterday, four top Uber officials, all notably female, conducted a media call where they attempted to field questions about Uber’s shifting company culture. Conspicuously, Kalanick was not on the call, but Arianna Huffington, who sits on the company’s board of directors, was.

“Uber must change if it is to be as successful in the next decade as it has been in the last seven years,” Huffington said on the call. “Creating a great culture will be key to their future success. Going forward there can be no room at Uber for brilliant jerks and zero tolerance for anything but totally respectable behavior in an equitable workplace environment.”

Additionally, Huffington also reiterated the company’s faith in Kalnick’s leadership abilities, while underlining the fact that Uber’s culture had to change, and that new hires would be a focus for the company moving forward.

Uber executives have responded swiftly to each controversy; however, as we have seen with their clumsy and thwarted responses thus far, there’s no real indication that the company won’t stumble as it continues to move forward.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Uber’s Controversies Continue to Pile Up in 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Technology is not glitch-proof, as a businessman from Côte d’Azur in southern France learned last week. The man is suing San Francisco-based Uber for a whopping $48 million after the app let his wife know of his whereabouts, which allegedly caused his divorce.

The man says he used his wife’s iPhone to order a ride through Uber then signed out of the app. But what he didn’t know was that the app apparently kept sending notifications to the phone much later, even when he was logged out. Those notifications let his wife know when he was traveling and when he arrived at a destination.

It’s unclear whether or not she could also see his actual destination, but if he had told her that he was, say, working late or visiting his parents, she probably got suspicious if the app kept telling her he was riding in an Uber. According to French newspaper Le Figaro, it is also not known whether he actually did cheat, but he said that the notifications certainly led his wife to believe so. The couple is now divorced.

@Independent Well, he should have known better

— WeCanGetYouAnything (@WeCanGetYou) February 9, 2017

While it may be common sense to not use your partner’s phone if you’re up to no good, the man and his lawyer still blame Uber for everything. “My client was the victim of a bug in an application […] and the bug has caused him problems in his private life,” said his lawyer David-André Darmon. Uber declined to comment, as the company doesn’t comment on individual cases.

Le Figaro tested recreating the glitch, and confirmed that the app would keep sending notifications to a phone, even if the user had logged out. But it only worked with versions of the app that were older than the December 15 update and only on iPhones.

This is not the first time that Uber has been involved in a privacy issue. For example, at the end of last year, a court filing by the company’s former forensic investigator, Samuel “Ward” Spangenberg, revealed that the company’s lack of cyber security allowed employees to keep tabs on famous politicians, celebrities, and even exes.

Uber insisted that Spangenberg had old information and that the company’s strict policies prohibited employees from seeing such data. But then five former security professionals spoke up and largely confirmed Spangenberg’s account. Both cases raise concerns about Uber’s handle on its users’ private information.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Man Sues Uber For $48 Million, Claims the App Caused His Divorce appeared first on Law Street.

Should there be a special keyboard just for lawyers? One company–Pro-Boards LLC–thinks so, and has developed its own legal keyboard, the LegalBoard. The new invention is debuting this week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

Are lawyers interested in a lawyer-specific keyboard? @legalkeyboard is proposing one. https://t.co/BV6Q3N9Yy2 pic.twitter.com/snOdUexhe6

— LawPay (@LawPay) January 7, 2017

The LegalBoard would include a lot of the specific symbols that lawyers often use, like the paragraph symbol and copyright symbol. And while it’s possible to make those symbols on normal keyboards, it often requires a series of shortcuts or clicks to render them. The LegalBoard would also create shortcuts for common features like bullets, or the words “plaintiff” and “defendant.”

The LegalBoard was invented by Brian Potts, a lawyer who noticed how annoying it was to have to stop working in order to insert certain symbols, and was inspired. He told Law Sites Blog:

I was furiously writing a brief when I went to insert a section symbol. As was my custom, I had to stop what I was doing, use the mouse, go to insert a symbol, find the section symbol and hit insert. This process stopped my train of thought, took up my precious time, and more than anything else, was incredibly annoying.

Potts’ invention sells for $65, which seems reasonable for lawyers who want to save some time on keystrokes. And it makes a lot of sense–so many professions have specific technological tools that help them, but keyboards have remained standard for many professions for years. While you can get some specialized keyboards for different languages, there aren’t a lot of other specific keyboards.  Potts also recognizes that lawyers aren’t the only people who may want these kinds of special keyboards, including doctors and journalists. In professions like the law and medicine, every moment can make a difference, so keyboards that save a few strokes could very well be worth it.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Do Lawyers Need Their Own Special Keyboard? appeared first on Law Street.

Amazon is planning to open a line of new, futuristic grocery stores, where you can get everything you need without standing in line or checking out. No more impatiently waiting behind people with an overloaded cart, or realizing you forgot your wallet at home.

It sounds like the future, but the online retailer plans to open the first physical store in early 2017. The first will be located in downtown Seattle, but according to the company’s internal plans, it could open up 2,000 new shops across the country within the next decade.

The company showed what the stores would look like in a video released Monday.

Introducing #AmazonGo, a new kind of store with no lines and no checkout. https://t.co/WMii0bWevi pic.twitter.com/OmZdzobA5F

— Amazon (@amazon) December 5, 2016

The shopping would work through an app with the same name as the store–Amazon Go. You would scan your smartphone at a digital gate when entering the store, and then the app would detect which products you pick out and put in your bag. When leaving, the sensors at the exit would notice and the app would automatically charge your Amazon account. Amazon says the stores would use the same technologies as self-driving cars do; computer vision, sensor fusion, and deep learning. The stores would be relatively small, taking up approximately 1,800 square feet.

This seems pretty great for consumers, who would save time and effort by using the Amazon Go stores. But with all this new technology doing the work for us this kind of automation, if it becomes widespread, could lead to a lot of people losing their jobs and source of income. There are already driverless cars in development, so what will happen when that technology is good and safe enough to replace taxi drivers? Likewise, grocery store cashiers are probably not overly excited about Amazon’s new plans.

Amazon Go eliminates the need for cashiers. There are 3.4 million of them in America. https://t.co/GwTvptSjMj

— Christopher Mims (@mims) December 5, 2016

Amazon has flirted with increasing its influence in physical markets for some time now, for example by opening three IRL bookstores with two more on the way. The company also already offers grocery delivery in some major cities. The first Amazon Go store in Seattle is actually already open to Amazon employees, who are currently beta testing the technology. And if everything goes according to plan, it will open to the public early next year.

Amazon Go pic.twitter.com/Eygx2mOh2q

— Caroline McCarthy (@caro) December 5, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Amazon Plans to Open Grocery Stores Without Checkout Lines appeared first on Law Street.

ICYMI–check out Law Street’s best of the week. Our top stories include Texas A&M’s use of technology in legal education, President Obama’s historic sexual assault bill, and the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration mistake.

1. 7 Ways Texas A&M is Using the Digital Era to Change Legal Education

Chocolate and sea salt, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, legal education and technology…these are all pairings that at first glance don’t seem like they mix together too well, but truly are the perfect combinations. And while legal education has traditionally been a field that hasn’t necessarily embraced the latest offerings in technology, one school in particular has broken away from the pack, and has begun offering innovative programs to students that embrace the power of technology. Texas A&M University School of Law has designed four programs–an LL.M. in Risk Management, an M.Jur in Risk Management, an LL.M in Wealth Management, and an M.Jur in Wealth Management–that use technology to bring innovative legal education to both lawyers and non-lawyers looking to expand their educations and skill sets. Read the full article here.

2. President Obama Signs Historic Sexual Assault Bill into Law

On Friday October 7 President Obama signed the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights; the most comprehensive sexual assault legislation to date. The new bill is a combination of existing laws from different states and will help make sure that rape survivors always know where their evidence is located, whether it has been tested, and the results. Previously, the legislation around rape and the handling of rape kits–the kit with materials and instructions for gathering evidence following a rape–has been unclear and repeatedly criticized. Read the full article here.

3. How Did the DHS Mistakenly Grant Citizenship to 858 Immigrants?

An Associated Press report released in September revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had “erroneously” granted at least 858 immigrants American citizenship. Typically, in any presidential election season, political parties would seize on a report like this, and would try to spin it to win the election. An issue concerning immigration is a political match to be lit, and the reactions could be explosive. Considering immigration reform has been one of the top priorities for legislators, the report may be especially relevant. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Chocolate and sea salt, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, legal education and technology…these are all pairings that at first glance don’t seem like they mix together too well, but truly are the perfect combinations. And while legal education has traditionally been a field that hasn’t necessarily embraced the latest offerings in technology, one school in particular has broken away from the pack, and has begun offering innovative programs to students that embrace the power of technology. Texas A&M University School of Law has designed four programs–an LL.M. in Risk Management, an M.Jur in Risk Management, an LL.M in Wealth Management, and an M.Jur in Wealth Management–that use technology to bring innovative legal education to both lawyers and non-lawyers looking to expand their educations and skill sets.

So what is Texas A&M doing that is so innovative? Check out seven ways that the school is changing legal education through the power of technology below:

Texas A&M Has Not Just One, but Two In-Demand Programs

Texas A&M’s Distance Education Program has two distinct but related programs: Risk Management and Wealth Management.

A degree in Wealth Management, a field that encompasses financial planning, investment portfolio management, and other financial services, can be beneficial to individuals working in positions such as chief financial officers, financial officers, and business analysts. Lawyers and non-lawyers alike have to traverse a complicated landscape of financial regulation and rules; a degree in wealth management helps build connections and skills that will make it easier to do so.

A degree in Risk Management, a field which aims to identify and mitigate financial risks, can provide a strong background for students in a wide variety of issues, like compliance, fiduciary management, corporate governance, and anti-money laundering. This program is open to lawyers and non-lawyers who work as compliance officers, risk specialists, or as fraud/anti-money laundering analysts. According to Texas A&M:

Risk Management is a growing field with employment prospects expected to increase by 30 percent over the next ten years. As Risk Management become more intertwined with legal regulation, industry professionals look to legal education for training. Texas A&M is uniquely positioned to provide education not only to those who are licensed attorneys, but other professionals who need legal training but are not interested in the practice of law.

Still not sure? Here’s someone who needs both a wealth and risk manager:

via GIPHY

But I have a job and I’m not in Texas.  How would I get these degrees?

The four degrees offered by Texas A&M are online, flexible, and designed specifically with working professionals’ busy schedules in mind. Each program takes approximately six semesters to complete, but there’s enough flexibility to allow students to work at their own pace.

The classes are in an asynchronous format, meaning that students can work at their own paces, completing assignments and listening to lectures. Have a busy couple days of meetings and deadlines? That’s fine–you can schedule yourself to get your work done ahead of time. Have some free time now? Tackle a hard section and set yourself up for smooth sailing the rest of the week.

Texas A&M wants to make it as easy as possible for students to take advantage of these degree offerings.

via GIPHY

Why are the same programs open to both lawyers and non lawyers?

The field of law doesn’t exist in a vacuum; neither do the fields of wealth management or risk management–many jobs are a lot more complicated than that. Lawyers can be asked to weigh in on questions that require more knowledge than just what they received in law school; other executives have to deal with complicated (and potentially costly) legal questions.

Lawyers can benefit from augmenting their legal expertise with applied knowledge from other fields. Non-lawyers will receive legal training in their specific specialties without attending law school. Both lawyers and non-lawyers will gain practical skills, new networks, and open themselves up to new career opportunities.

Lawyers who complete the Wealth or Risk Management programs will receive an LL.M.; non-lawyers will receive an M.Jur.

Who teaches these Courses?

William Byrnes. Image courtesy of Texas A&M Law

How do incredibly qualified and dynamic world class professors sound? William H. Byrnes, a pioneer in online legal education, designed the programs at Texas A&M. According to the National Journal, “Perhaps no one in legal academia has more experience with online master’s degrees than William Byrnes.”

Byrnes, an Executive Professor and Associate Dean, said about the program:

Our ultimate goal is to enable professional and graduate students to completely confront the complexities of programs such as modern wealth management and risk management, and to prepare them for successful careers as well as for independent, lifelong learning.

In addition to Byrnes’ expertise, the programs also feature classes taught by Robert Bloink, Richard Kravitz, and George Mentz, all experts in their respective fields.

The Tech is Top of the Line

A lot of people have one big concern with online courses: how can the experience of learning behind a computer screen possibly compare to in-class learning?

Texas A&M has put a lot of time and effort into making sure that students receive an unparalleled distance learning experience. All of the courses included in both the wealth and risk management programs benefit from 24/7 tech support, and students receive an orientation upon enrolling to make sure that they know how to use all the applicable technology.

Moreover, Texas A&M makes sure that the tech used improves the educational experience, rather than hindering it. The curricula are designed to facilitate teamwork and interaction.

via GIPHY

What if I need still a Hand?

There’s lots of help to be had! One of the benefits of the online programs is that each student has a personal resource at the school in the distance education office to help you every step along the way. Texas A&M Law wants to make sure that you succeed from day 1 with top-notch, hands on advisors.

via GIPHY

Access to the Aggie Network

Image courtesy of Texas A&M Law

Texas A&M has a massive alumni network–the Aggie Network, that students who participate in the Distance Education Programs become members of upon graduation. The Aggie Network is composed of almost 400,000 alums–an unparalleled networking and support community.

Specifically for lawyers there’s also the Texas Aggie Bar Association for even more networking purposes.

Plus, you get an awesome ring.

Texas A&M University School of Law

Texas A&M University School of Law is a public, ABA-accredited law school located in downtown Fort Worth, Texas. The law school is a member of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS) and offers the juris doctor degree through its full-time, part-time, and evening programs. The school provides a Masters of Laws (LL.M) program and Masters of Jurisprudence (M. Jur.) program residentially, with the focus in Wealth Management and in Risk Management online. Texas A&M University School of Law is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post 7 Ways Texas A&M is Using the Digital Era to Change Legal Education appeared first on Law Street.

Last Tuesday, Hillary Clinton released a technology and innovation policy platform with a myriad of initiatives to expand internet accessibility, support STEM entrepreneurs, and more. The brief is full of bold ideas to revitalize the American economy through the outlet of technological innovation and proposes initiatives like deferring student loans for periods of 3 years for young entrepreneurs and expanding broadband internet access to every American household by 2020.

This is in stark contrast to Donald Trump who only has seven published platform points, none of which focus on technology and only one—tax reform—which really discusses American economy. In fact, some of Trump’s only comments on the topic of technology  have been calling to “close up parts of the internet.”

#DonaldTrump advocates closing up the Internet 2 stop the process of thought/free speech. So Communist China-like. pic.twitter.com/hRab3xpVcK

— NotBuffytheVMPslayer (@NotBUFFY_VS) December 8, 2015

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2014

This paired with his opposition to net neutrality has pretty clearly put tech and open-internet advocates in Clinton’s court.

Hillary Clinton’s plan for innovation and technology is more than a favorable political contrast; it is a comprehensive plan for expanding technology, internet access and quality, and the culture of innovation in the U.S.

The plan consists of five core points;

• Investing in technology to create jobs
• Investing in digital infrastructure
• Advancing America’s global technology leadership
• Promoting innovation while protecting privacy
• Engineering a more innovative government

Within these points are many specific proposals that tech advocates are fawning over such as defending net neutrality, engaging the private sector to create 50,000 computer science educators, and expanding internet access to more public places.

Despite having so many specific policy proposals, Clinton’s plan retains an overarching message to appeal to all voters; technology should not be exclusive but should act as an equalizer to allow anybody to become an entrepreneur and innovator.

The plan invests equally in industry and communities through proposals like offering loan forgiveness up to $17,500 to entrepreneurs who start businesses in “distressed areas,” improving copyright and patent systems, and offering grants to cities to expand low cost, high quality internet.

Though the plan is more far-reaching than a defense of net neutrality and goals to extend computer science education, it truly is a full economic policy agenda with initiatives to create jobs, reduce college debt, closing corporate loopholes and more. The fact that Hillary Clinton’s avenue to achieve these goals is technological innovation is emblematic of her commitment to the future and to opportunity.

While the plan has been met with some skepticism that Clinton is pandering to Silicon Valley-ites and concerns that the plan is too far-reaching to be achieved without a completely cooperative Congress abound, the plan is at the least evidence that Hillary Clinton and her team have a fantastic understanding of creating complex, cohesive policy that promotes progressive economic goals.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary Clinton Releases Tech Agenda Aiming to Equalize the Internet appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Since 1990, the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®) has been advocating for innovation in women’s healthcare. The organization is on the cutting edge of the newest research trends, and each year SWHR picks a different theme to highlight at its annual gala. At this year’s event, one message rang loud and true: we’re officially in the age of big data. Almost everything we do–from voting choices, to commercial purchases, to Netflix binge-watching, can be recorded and analyzed to glean patterns. But the incorporation of big data into healthcare is particularly exciting, and promises to revolutionize medical treatment for women. Read on for a sampling of how we’re now integrating big data into patient treatments, and what it means for women’s health.

Big Data & Women’s Health

First Things First: What exactly is big data?

It’s a fair question. We hear the term thrown around a lot, but there’s certainly no cut and dry definition. Essentially, big data is the collection and use of large amounts of information that are naturally generated from our everyday activities. Big data and healthcare can include things like our use of smartphones (and other technology like FitBit or the Apple Watch) to track our fitness levels, the prescriptions we are given, the information generated by clinical trials, the analysis of our genetic material, and so much more.

So how can big data affect women’s health?

It’s no secret that there are sex differences in health. Medical research has only recently begun to recognize these differences and incorporate them into the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses. While our understanding of sex differences and how they affect health have improved, discoveries are still being made about the different ways that certain diseases and treatments affect women. The ability to collect data and pinpoint patterns specifically for women will help inform how to treat them moving forward.

Big Data in Action 

Take for example, a project at Baystate Medical Center, in Massachusetts–the Breast Cancer Registry. Researchers there are creating a large database based on data collected from 400 women who have had breast cancer. The data will help the researchers find patterns in how different women respond to treatments, by acknowledging factors like genetics, age, weight, lifestyle, and other aspects of health. According to Dr. Grace Makari-Judson, chair of the Baystate Health Breast Network and co-director of the Rays of Hope Center for Breast Cancer Research:

What’s nice about the experience with the registry, we have a diverse group of individuals participating and they aren’t the highly selected people in clinical trial. You get more meaningful data (looking at) what is the use of this drug like in the general population.

The inclusion of women (especially minority women) into clinical trials has been a long fought battle, so the ability to collect and analyze this kind of data in the real world is invaluable.

Electronic Health Records 

Electronic health records are another innovative way to use the data already at our disposal. To many, it probably seems archaic that until recently, almost all of our medical information was kept in file folders. We now have the technology to process and incorporate massive amounts of data on patients–from childhood illnesses and injuries to family histories and genetic information.

As electronic health records start being implemented, evidence has begun to show that these records help doctors more effectively manage women’s health. A report in the Journal of the Medical Informatics Association showed that the presence of electronic health records make it more likely that doctors order essential tests like pap smears and breast exams for their female patients–leading to an overall positive impact on women’s health.

Examples of Individual Applications

Genomics

Genomics is the practice of mapping an individual’s genetic material. It’s a data-intensive process that requires serious computing power. Genomics can help provide patients with a predictive and more individual picture of their health. For women, one of the most visible developments in the field of genomics is the ability to test BRCA1 and BRCA2. Certain genetic mutations in those genes greatly increase the risk of ovarian and breast cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute:

Together, BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations account for about 20 to 25 percent of hereditary breast cancers and about 5 to 10 percent of all breast cancers. In addition, mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 account for around 15 percent of ovarian cancers overall. Breast and ovarian cancers associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations tend to develop at younger ages than their nonhereditary counterparts.

In cases where BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations exist, steps like enhanced screening, chemoprevention (the use of drugs to reduce the likelihood of or delay the onset of cancer), or preventative surgery might be considered. For example, actress and filmmaker Angelina Jolie tested positive for a BRCA1 mutation, and as a result chose to get a double mastectomy in 2013.

Precision Medicine

Precision medicine is an exciting new development that ties a lot of the tenets of big data together. Precision medicine uses big data, as well as other tools like genomics, to create more individualized treatment for patients. The Obama Administration has spearheaded the precision medicine initiative, and explains the aim in a press release:

The future of precision medicine will enable health care providers to tailor treatment and prevention strategies to people’s unique characteristics, including their genome sequence, microbiome composition, health history, lifestyle, and diet. To get there, we need to incorporate many different types of data, from metabolomics (the chemicals in the body at a certain point in time), the microbiome (the collection of microorganisms in or on the body), and data about the patient collected by health care providers and the patients themselves. Success will require that health data is portable, that it can be easily shared between providers, researchers, and most importantly, patients and research participants.

Conclusion

The expanded use of data in healthcare is the future, and the developments that we’re seeing in the present are already incredibly exciting. As SWHR puts it:

Data initiatives are revolutionizing healthcare and helping to improve every aspect of medicine, from bench to bedside. This data, which is being collected and utilized by healthcare providers, pharmaceutical and medical device companies, insurance companies, hospitals, and researchers, provides a wealth of healthcare information that can be used to better inform healthcare decisions and delivery for every woman.

Resources

Primary

SWHR: SWHR’s 26th Annual Gala: “Revolutionizing Healthcare & Research Through Data”

National Cancer Institute: BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing

The White House: The Precision Medicine Initiative

Additional

Law Street Media: Precision Medicine: The Future of Health Care?

CB Insights: 13 Startups Working in Women’s Reproductive Health

Forbes: How Big Data is Changing Healthcare

Boston Business Journal: Focus on Women’s Health: Big Data, Registries Help Docs Understand Cancer

Radar: Genomics and the Role of Big Data in Personalizing the Healthcare Experience

New York Times: Angelina Jolie; My Medical Choice

Modern Healthcare: EHR Use Tied to More Women’s Health Tests: Study

Society for Women’s Health Research

The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®), is a national non-profit based in Washington D.C. that is widely recognized as the thought-leader in promoting research on biological differences in disease. SWHR is dedicated to transforming women’s health through science, advocacy, and education. Founded in 1990 by a group of physicians, medical researchers and health advocates, SWHR aims to bring attention to the variety of diseases and conditions that disproportionately or predominately affect women. For more information, please visit www.swhr.org. Follow us on Twitter at @SWHR. SWHR is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post Big Data: A Revolution for Women’s Healthcare appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. government issued new rules on Tuesday regarding the flying of commercial drones, opening up a ton of business opportunities. Drones–small, unmanned aircraft–can be used for taking photos, to survey damage done by natural disasters, and plenty more. But using drones for delivering packages, as e-commerce giant Amazon plans on doing, will not be possible under the new rules.

The problem for Amazon and other retailers with hopes of delivering orders via drones is the requirement that mandates the pilot to always be in the line of sight of the aircraft. In addition, drones can only fly in daylight, and can’t weigh more than 55 pounds.

DOT and FAA Finalize Rules for Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems https://t.co/yr1VUrygOf #drones #flysafe pic.twitter.com/XaUTA9rhB7

— The FAA (@FAANews) June 21, 2016

The Big Brother Aspect

The biggest issue with regulating drones has been ensuring safety and privacy. Several groups have expressed fears that they could be used for spying on people, or are simply not safe enough. The fact that they can now be as small as insects, and can use cameras with facial recognition technology, is indeed unsettling to some. “The FAA continues to ignore the top concern of Americans about the deployment of commercial drones in the United States–the need for strong privacy safeguards,” Marc Rotenberg, president of Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the Boston Globe.

Drone captures 70 tiger sharks feasting on a whale https://t.co/JGGv3F9pPa pic.twitter.com/gBrqVjmVYZ

— Drones (@drones) May 24, 2016

Despite this, some in the business sector are happy with the new rules. Michael Drobac, a lawyer for drone efforts at companies like Amazon and Google, said:

Within months you will see the incredible impact of these rules with commercial drones becoming commonplace in a variety of uses. This will show the technology is reliable, and then it becomes harder to argue against broader uses–like for delivery.

More Jobs

According to the press release from the Federal Aviation Administration, the new regulations could open up more than 100,000 new jobs within the next 10 years, and could generate more than $80 billion for the U.S. economy. U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said: “We are part of a new era in aviation, and the potential for unmanned aircraft will make it safer and easier to do certain jobs, gather information, and deploy disaster relief.”

Before the new rules, a piloting license was needed in order to operate a drone, but with the new rules you only need  a “remote pilot certificate,” which is attainable by passing an aeronautical knowledge test. You must be at least 16-years-old to fly a drone, and cannot fly the aircraft over other people. The new rules don’t affect hobbyists, however, so if you own a drone and want to know what is allowed, you can read the FAA’s “Fly for Fun” guidelines here.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FAA Issues New Rules for Commercial Drones appeared first on Law Street.

The D.C. Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in favor of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality regulations to ensure an open internet in the U.S. In the wake of this latest victory for web activists and advocates of net neutrality, here are four things to consider as we move forward:

1. Your internet access won’t change, but it could get worse.

The FCC has been operating under stronger regulations from Internet Service Providers (ISPs) since February 2015–ISPs are now considered public utilities. However, if these regulations were not in place, ISPs would be allowed to manipulate the flow of the internet.

Debate on net neutrality focused on whether it was fair for ISPs to prioritize certain content providers who could pay more, and slow traffic to other content providers. What this meant for the average internet user was potentially higher buffering times on streaming services like Netflix and slower traffic to websites with lower priority. Yikes.

2. AT&T, lover of monopolies and telecommunications, is back at it again

AT&T has been one of the most vocal opponents of the reclassification of ISPs as telecommunication services and the government regulation that accompanies that reclassification. AT&T, among other opponents, claims that this intervention will lead to less innovation and investment.

In reaction to the ruling, AT&T Senior Executive VP David McAtee released a statement claiming, “We have always expected this issue to be decided by the Supreme Court, and we look forward to participating in that appeal.”

But we’ve already seen U.S. v. AT&T in the 1970’s when AT&T was found to be breaking anti-trust laws in its monopolization of local telephone service in the U.S. And then there was the time the company tried to buy T-Mobile but abandoned the effort after a lawsuit was brought by the DOJ’s antitrust division.

Maybe AT&T just doesn’t understand that the U.S. government and its citizens have decided that we oppose the predatory business practices that are made possible with monopolies. But in case nobody has told them; no AT&T, you can’t keep trying to re-monopolize one of the most important services in the world.

3. We still have a long way to go to ensure an open, public internet service

Internet being considered a public utility is a big step. However, while we rejoice in our ability to binge-watch “Game of Thrones” at equal speeds, individuals living in rural and poor communities still face limited internet access.

Internet use in rural areas is at 78 percent, compared to 84 percent in urban and suburban areas. However, not all internet is equal. Oftentimes in rural areas, especially in parts of the south and western U.S., internet is offered at higher prices and lower speeds.

The dialogue around internet use also often disregards the inevitable fact that for poor families, buying computers that can cost hundreds to thousands of dollars and is not a priority, and often is not possible. The internet cannot truly be considered an open, free, and public service until we address the high prices and differences in speed and quality of internet faced by rural and poor communities throughout the U.S.

4. Don’t be surprised if you see net neutrality in the Supreme Court

In case the comment from AT&T’s David McAtee didn’t tip you off, it is widely suspected that net neutrality will find itself in the Supreme Court soon as AT&T and other providers have expressed intention of appealing the case.

The D.C. Court of Appeals found no merit to the arguments of ISPs in the case decided on Tuesday. Further, the issue has already been looked at in part by SCOTUS. In 2005, SCOTUS decided National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services by essentially saying that since the legislation in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was ambiguous, the FCC got to decide how to classify internet service (as a telecommunications service or an information service). The FCC clearly has since decided to classify internet as a telecommunications service. Nevertheless, expect to see net neutrality top headlines in a Supreme Court appeal soon.

But until then, we celebrate this win as one step close in a battle for universal access to the internet, the largest, most empowering, and most accessible information database in the world.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Court Upholds Net Neutrality: 4 Things You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Do you need to order a quick ride in Austin, Texas? You may now be out of luck, or forced to call a cab, because both Uber and Lyft are pausing their operations in the city for now.

This big move comes after voters in the city rejected a ballot measure that would have loosened regulations on the kinds of services ridesharing companies provide. The regulations were adopted late last year after the legislation was passed by Austin’s City Council, but the ballot measure was posed to Austin’s voters this Saturday. While both Uber and Lyft lobbied hard for its passage and spent a combined $8 million plus in lobbying, 56 percent of Austin’s voters cast their ballots against the measure.

The Austin regulations essentially required Uber and Lyft to be treated more like taxis. One of the biggest points of contention was that they required that the companies run the fingerprints of the drivers they hire–Uber and Lyft pushed back against that regulation because both companies conduct their own internal background checks. According to the Wall Street Journal:

Austin also prohibits drivers from stopping in traffic lanes for passenger drop-offs and pickups, includes requirements for identifying vehicles for hire and imposes data reporting on the ride-hailing companies.

Austin is a major tech hub with a recent large influx of young people, so the fact that Uber and Lyft would rather give up that market than comply with the regulations makes quite a strong statement. Uber has additionally threatened to leave Houston, where similar regulations are under ongoing debate. Both companies also followed through on their threat in San Antonio, after that city made fingerprinting mandatory. Neither operated within San Antonio limits until the city made fingerprinting voluntary instead of required.

Statements from both companies echo these sentiments. Lyft’s spokesperson Chelsea Wilson said:

Lyft and Austin are a perfect match and we want to stay in the city. Unfortunately, the rules passed by City Council don’t allow true ride-sharing to operate.

Uber’s Austin general manager, Chris Nakutis, talked a local news outlet and stated: “Disappointment does not begin to describe how we feel about shutting down operations in Austin.”

Uber and Lyft are now in a game of chicken with Austin–and there’s really know way to tell who will swerve first.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber and Lyft Pull out of Austin After Voters Keep Strict Regulations in Place appeared first on Law Street.

ITT Educational Services–the company that operates ITT Technical Institute–is the latest for-profit education company to be sued for misleading its students. A new lawsuit has been filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, claiming that the company used deceptive information about employment rates post-graduation, as well as about some of the aspects of its computer science program. Additionally, the for-profit education company is under federal investigation based on suspicions it may have defrauded the federal government.

According to Boston.com, when it came to the Computer Network Systems program:

ITT’s admissions representatives allegedly told prospective students that anywhere from 80 percent to 100 percent of graduates obtained jobs in or related to their field of study, but real placement rates were actually 50 percent or less, according to the suit.

The suit argues that when ITT categorized jobs as “in or related to their field of study” it included positions like working customer service at a big-box retailer, internships or short-term positions involving computers, and working for an airline checking passengers in for flights. Essentially, if someone used a computer for their job (which is pretty much everyone in this day and age) they were counted as employed under ITT’s metric.

The lawsuit also claims that ITT didn’t provide the kind of in-classroom education that it advertised; the accompanying press release stated:

ITT also advertised and promoted hands-on training and personalized attention through its program, but students said their experience involved the use of outdated technology, absent teachers, or being told to ‘Google’ the answers to questions.

This certainly isn’t the first time that ITT has had its day in court. ITT, and in some cases its top officials, have been sued by the Securities Exchange Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Attorney General of New Mexico, and has gotten into multiple scuffles with shareholders. Its stock has fallen, and its reputation is presumably taking a hit as more controversies continue to pile up.

However, ITT has promised to fight Massachusetts on these particular allegations. Yesterday the company released a statement claiming that the lawsuit was just an example of: “Massachusetts’ woeful record of hostility toward career colleges that train non-traditional and underserved students.”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Fight Against For-Profit Schools: ITT Sued by Massachusetts Attorney General appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a habit that I know I’m certainly guilty of sometimes–looking at my phone while I walk. Whether it’s answering a quick text, scrolling through an email, checking directions, or switching the song I’m listening to, it’s easy to look down and get distracted by my phone. And it’s certainly a bad habit, but it’s not illegal. At least not right now–a state lawmaker in New Jersey wants to make texting while walking illegal in the Garden State.

New Jersey Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt has proposed a bill that would make walking and using your phone illegal, unless the device is hands-free. People who are caught violating the law could face a $50 fine, or up to 15 days in prison. These penalties are consistent with the punishments for jay walking. According to Lampitt, the money that comes in from imposing these penalties would in part be used to educate citizens about the dangers of texting and walking.

Lampitt explained her motivations for the bill, explaining texting and driving as a public safety issue. She stated: “An individual crossing the road distracted by their smartphone presents just as much danger to motorists as someone jaywalking and should be held, at minimum, to the same penalty.”

According to Mashable the bill also relied on a:

National Safety Council report that shows distracted walking incidents involving cellphones accounted for an estimated 11,101 injuries from 2000 through 2011. The study found a majority of those injured were female and most were 40 or younger. Talking on the phone was the most prevalent activity at the time of injury, while texting accounted for 12 percent. Nearly 80 percent of the injuries occurred as the result of a fall, while 9 percent occurred from the pedestrian striking a motionless object.

While there are many states that ban texting and driving (as well as doing other things on your phone), bills that would punish texting and walking haven’t been so successful, failing in Arkansas, Illinois, Nevada, and New York.

It’s certain that texting and driving can be dangerous–but whether or not it should be penalized seems to be a different question entirely. It will take time away from law enforcement officers who could be enforcing more serious laws, and many are arguing that this proposed law is a classic case of government overreach. As of right now, there hasn’t been a hearing scheduled for the bill yet, so we’ll have to see if it even comes into consideration in New Jersey.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will New Jersey Ban Texting and Walking? appeared first on Law Street.

Apple is one of the world’s most powerful and innovative brands, and there is no doubt that it has significant staying power that will guarantee the company an enviable position in the tech world for the foreseeable future. However, the cult of Apple has been losing some followers who have decided to switch back to their original PCs. What does this mean for millennials, many of whom have been behind Apple’s huge growth in recent years?

Companies generally use PCs for workplace desktops and laptops, but many former PC users have also abandoned Apple as their personal device provider. There are a host of reasons why someone might switch back from a Mac, but the most commonly cited ones are variety of devices and cost. With dozens of different PC models on the market, consumers have a wide range of options to choose from. The rise of the tablet has also converted many traditional laptop users into tablet users, who have become devotees of the Microsoft Surface or the Kindle Fire. The Surface has become a major revenue generator for Microsoft, allowing it to hold its own against Apple over the past few years. The Samsung Chromebook has not overtaken the Macbook Air but it has opened the door to other companies creating lightweight yet still powerful laptops. More than usability, however, the cost of Apple products is what dissuades consumers from joining the Mac bandwagon. Shelling out almost a thousand dollars for a new laptop every few years seems absurd to consumers who could be buying PCs for half the cost.

Defenders of Apple argue that the user experience is far superior and that the level of customer service is unparalleled. The prevalence and ease of Apple stores makes computer repair seem like a breeze and customer satisfaction surveys constantly rank Apple at the top of the list. Apple will not be falling into oblivion anytime soon but it also does not have the tech market entirely under its control. Microsoft has claimed it will be making significant advances in 2016, and if that promise holds true, the Mac vs. PC debate may no longer be as much of a no-brainer as late 2000s Mac ads made it seem. My conversion to an iPhone two years ago has made me acknowledge the ease and efficiency of using an Apple product, yet, as a long-time PC user, I have no desire to switch to a Macbook. I love that the computer itself is not fragile (I am always thankful that I have a PC whenever I see someone carrying a Macbook with a shattered screen into their local Apple store) and seeing as I mainly use my computer for Microsoft Suite, hanging on to my PC makes perfect sense. Perhaps Microsoft, Samsung and other companies should take that to heart. We may all have become addicted to iPhones, but some are still wary of Apple when it comes to our more substantial technological needs. In an age where technology is constantly developing and growing, it’s almost paradoxical to think that we are still so comfortable with the original iteration.

This is an interesting question for the millennial generation specifically, given that we have grown up with Apple–iPods and Mac Pros were circulating around us when many of us were still in elementary school. When consumers that grew up surrounded by Apple products actively choose to look elsewhere for their personal device, Apple should consider it a major red flag. Many people receive their technological devices as gifts from their parents, which explains why the PC has retained a foothold with so many youth consumers who have transitioned to Apple for their phones and musical devices–but not for their laptop. Apple needs to cater not only to the generation that has grown up with their products but to the purchasing power behind that generation (the parents).

According to The Huffington Post, some users still identify very strictly along Mac vs. PC lines, associating personality traits and distinct demographics with each brand, but for many consumers, “the operating system wars are over.” The competition between Mac and PC has pushed both sides to produce higher quality technology and security, to the point that they are essentially equivalent. This generation will probably care less about the customer service or usability of the device because by the time they are purchasing their own device (rather than receiving one selected for them by their parents), both Mac and PC will have exceptional platforms.

So, this means that the factor that will now decide the Mac vs. PC debate is cost. Who can sell the best quality product for the lowest price? When catering to a consumer base that has been rocked by a recession, facing heightened unemployment, and crippling student loan debt, cost cannot be considered a minimal piece of the puzzle. Loyalty to one brand over another may not survive in the coming decades, but competitive pricing will always be a surefire way to attract customers.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Return of the PC: Are Millennials Going to Move Away from Apple? appeared first on Law Street.

If you were thinking about shelling out hundreds on a new Fitbit to help jump start your New Year’s fitness resolution, you may want to think again. The popular fitness tracking company is under scrutiny after being sued in a class action lawsuit from users alleging that the heart rate monitors in the trackers are “dangerously ineffective.”

Three plaintiffs from California, Colorado, and Wisconsin are claiming that both Fitbit’s Charge HR and Surge models, which come equipped with trademarked PurePulse technology, fail to accurately record wearer’s hear rates during workouts. In some cases the plaintiffs claimed the trackers displayed their heart rates as nearly half of their actual heart rates. By reporting drastically lower heart rates, the fitness accessory could pose a potential danger to users’ health.

The plaintiffs allege that contacting Fitbit about the defect didn’t deter the company from continuing to advertise the product, writing,

This failure did not keep Fitbit from heavily promoting the heart rate monitoring feature of the PurePulse Trackers and from profiting handsomely from it. In so doing, Fitbit defrauded the public and cheated its customers, including Plaintiffs.

In many ways Fitbit’s PurePulse technology, which promises to help “make every beat count,” has acted as a major selling point for consumers on the fence about shelling out extra bucks on upgraded models.

If these plaintiffs are right about the feature being potentially defective, it could have a seriously negative impact on the brand–which couldn’t have come at a worse time since the company just unveiled its newest smart fitness watch: Fitbit Blaze. A massive selloff and 20 percent drop in stock prices have shown that investors are taking the allegations seriously.

On the other hand, the preemptive selloffs may prove to be entirely unnecessary. With only three plaintiffs leading the charge on the class action lawsuit, these false advertising and fraud allegations are hardly indicative of a large scale problem with the company’s merchandise. But who knows, this could end up being the catalyst for more people disappointed with their heart rate trackers to come out of the woodwork.

Update 1/11/16:

A Fitbit spokesperson released a statement to Fortune saying that the company does not believe the lawsuit has any merit. The full statement can be read here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fitbit Lawsuit Claims HR Monitors are “Dangerously Inaccurate” appeared first on Law Street.

No one has ever stopped their friend in a parking lot and said, “Quick, take a photo of me with that Prius.” But on the stage of the Fremont warehouse where Elon Musk revealed the Tesla Model X two weeks ago, every smartphone camera in the room was flashing as invitees to the event jostled each other in attempts to take the best Instagram. Tesla Motors is a brand committed to making electric energy exciting, creative and even sexy. Yet Tesla is frequently categorized as a niche product reserved for Silicon Valley that will never create significant change outside of a designated tax bracket.

This perception of Tesla is a key part of green energy’s clique mentality–only a narrow percentage of green activists are considered to be truly making impactful change and other innovators and policymakers get written off as merely jumping on the bandwagon. The stereotype of the aging hippie with a handmade sign and a tie dye shirt is not a comical caricature–it’s a key part of why green energy movements freeze out certain voices and interests. The idea of “selling out” or “going corporate” is so antithetical to the roots of the green energy movement that activists fear even being associated with luxury products. Here lies the paradox of the Tesla Model X: it is an innovative and high performing electric vehicle yet because it is priced as a luxury product, the green energy movement feels uncomfortable endorsing it. Silicon Valley, for all of its flaws, is one of the world’s greatest incubators of alternative energy and technology but in recent years, it has been labeled too elitist and narrowly-focused. Green energy leaders tend to laud the advances of American technology but then proceed to write Silicon Valley off as disconnected from the economic and political realities of energy implementation. Yet this criticism comes without any proposed reforms–Silicon Valley gets dismissed without advice on how to improve.

Take the Model X as an example. After the initial slew of articles describing the features of the Model X, newspapers picked up a second story: the potential $25,000 tax loophole for small business owners who purchase a Model X. The Model X was immediately transformed from a feather in the cap of electric energy into a symbol of corrupt capitalism. The phrase “tax cuts for the rich” is almost a curse word in the green energy world and may create significant backlash against the Model X. Why? Because being “part of the establishment” is the cardinal sin of the green energy movement (even in the case of the Model X, where Tesla is merely following the rules of the IRS tax code). However, opponents of this tax break present no other viable solution to get more drivers behind the wheel of electric vehicles. In fact, tax breaks for electric vehicles are a key part of green energy reforms across the country–so why attack one electric energy tax break while lauding another?

Green energy no longer lives on the periphery–the fact that multiple candidates in the 2016 presidential race have outlined detailed alternative energy plans that reach as far as 2050 is proof that activists have done incredible work in educating policymakers. However, green energy will never match the lobbying power of traditional energy companies if it continues to subscribe to the outdated idea that green energy can’t exist across a broad range of commercial interest–including the luxury market. Environmental activism was born out of populist desire to protect the environment, for both current and future populations, regardless of class, creed, or color. Green energy can’t fully commit to this goal unless it lets go of its own prejudices and accepts that you don’t have to rock a peace sign and long hair to care about alternative energy.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Fear and Loathing in Green Energy: Prejudice Against the Tesla Model X appeared first on Law Street.

Google and Microsoft are finally putting a five-year legal battle to bed. A series of roughly 20 lawsuits in the United States and Germany over various patents and technological innovations were all settled, based on an agreement between the two tech monoliths.

The two companies were involved in disputes involving a wide range of products, including Motorola phones and Xbox technology. It’s unclear what sort of financial agreements were exchanged between the two companies.

The statement put out by Google and Microsoft executives included the following explanation:

As part of the agreement, the companies will dismiss all pending patent infringement litigation between them, including cases related to Motorola Mobility.

Separately, Google and Microsoft have agreed to collaborate on certain patent matters and anticipate working together in other areas in the future to benefit our customers.

So what does this mean for Google, Microsoft, and the tech industry as a whole? Well it may be indicative of the fact that these companies have bigger and more menacing enemies than each other. For example, both companies have been fighting patent trolls. Patent trolls buy up patents and then use them to file a number of lawsuits, but without any intention of actually utilizing the patents. These lawsuits are pretty prevalent in the United States, and with the European Union setting up a new patent court, Google and Microsoft are both lobbying to pass legislation that will ensure these kinds of lawsuits won’t explode in Europe as well.

Additionally Google and Microsoft, as well as a whole bevy of other tech companies, are working on a project called the Alliance for Open Media. Other partners in the venture include Cisco, Amazon, Netflix, Intel, and Mozilla. The purpose of the project is to create media formats, particularly video, that are royalty-free and work “across devices of all kinds and for users worldwide.” This will save these companies money, and probably lead to less expensive patent fights between them when it comes to video streaming. Moreover, it’s a smart PR move, as it will allow customers who probably don’t much care about patent battles between tech companies to more easily share videos across a wide range of devices.

So, Google and Microsoft burying the hatchet, at least in part, may be indicative of an overall shift between the two companies. However there are still some legal issues between the two companies pending, and there’s no guarantee that more–including patent issues–won’t arise in the future. For now, however, it looks like Google and Microsoft are mending some fences.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google and Microsoft End Long Patent Battle appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an old saying–the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Two of Uber’s biggest rivals–Lyft and the Chinese ride-sharing company Didi Kuaidi have apparently taken that adage to heart, as they just announced they’re teaming up, seemingly in the hopes to take down the rideshare king–Uber.

The partnership between Lyft and Didi Kuaidi essentially means that users who have Lyft but not Didi Kuaidi downloaded can use their Lyft app to call a Didi Kuaidi car in a area where Lyft isn’t operating, and vice versa. By doing so, both services massively expanded their markets, and made it easier on their riders by combining the apps. This will mark Lyft’s first entry in the Chinese market, which is currently dominated by Didi Kuaidi. Didi Kuaidi claims to have control of roughly 80 percent of the private ridesharing market, and provides about three million rides each day. Moreover, this partnership isn’t the only interaction that Lyft and Didi Kuaidi have had–the Chinese company has invested heavily in Lyft. It contributed $100 million to Lyft’s most recent round of funding.

Why would Lyft and Didi Kuaidi want to get involved in each other’s markets? There’s one very simple explanation–they want to take Uber down. Uber already dominates Lyft in the U.S. While Didi Kuaidi is the prominent provider in China, the company is presumably nervous about Uber’s announcement that it plans to aggressively expand in China. During a round of fundraising this summer, Uber sent out a letter to investors that explained the opportunities available in the Chinese market. The letter stated:

Guangzhou, Hangzhou and Chengdu have all surpassed New York as our three largest cities on a trips basis. Impressively, Hangzhou and Chengdu have accomplished this feat in just 9 months, compared to New York which is 4 years old.

Hangzhou is now over 400x the size that New York was at its same age. 200,000 Hangzhou residents are becoming new UberChina riders every week!

While some critics think the numbers that Uber is claiming to have in China may be overblown, it’s clear that the company is making a big push. Given Didi Kuaidi’s move to partner with Lyft, it also doesn’t want to take the threat from Uber lying down.

Didi Kuaidi may be looking for other partners as well–rumors are floating that similar partnerships are in the works with ridesharing companies in India and Singapore. As Uber tries to break further into the international market, it may face an increasingly connected world of rivals.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rideshare Rivalry: Two of Uber’s Biggest Rivals Team Up appeared first on Law Street.

Phones, MP3 players, tablets, even watches have been heralded as next big thing in technology over the past decade or so. Now, however, that title belongs to Virtual Reality. Companies ranging from Facebook to Google to Microsoft have developed or are developing headsets that allow users to finally realize the virtual reality experience. While the industry is still in its infancy, a recent surge in funding and attention suggests virtual reality break-throughs in a number of different aspects of everyday life ranging from video games to movies. Read on to learn about the next big thing starting with its origins, how it actually works, what is currently available on the virtual reality market, and what is on the horizon.

History of Virtual Reality

The concept of virtual reality extends all the way back into the 1860s, when artists created 3-D circular pictures. However, like many other inventions, the progression of virtual reality was neither linear, nor was it the result of the work of just one person.   The rise of modern virtual reality can be traced the 1950s. In 1957 a man named Martin Hellig invented something known as the Sensorama, which combined 3-D pictures with wind, sound, and various smells.

This vision was shared by technician named Douglas Engelbart who saw the potential for digital displays in the future. His vision began being realized as part of a larger effort on behalf of the United States government to design a new radar system, whose recordings would be easier for humans to understand and interpret.

This work started bearing fruit in the 1960s when another scientist, Ivan Sutherland, developed a headset to design cars and mechanical parts on a computer. Another leap forward came in the form of flight simulators, which became increasingly popular in the 1970s as they offered a safer alternative to flight training than the actual thing. Initially, the simulator started off as stitched together movies, however as the technology advanced so they began offering video simulations that placed the person in the virtual cockpit.

VR also made it to the movies, as evidenced by the increasing incorporation and even reliance on visual effects in Hollywood blockbusters. In fact the first movie to depict the notion of Virtual Reality was the original Tron, which was released in 1982. VR was utilized in the video game industry as well as in arcades and early headsets, like Sega’s model form 1993. VR was also developed to assist with various rehabilitation exercises, namely to help those dealing with PTSD.  The video below takes an in-depth look at the history of virtual reality:

How does virtual reality work?

What exactly is virtual reality? For a basic definition it can be thought of as a computer generated three-dimensional world. This world can be experienced as the real world is, through sights, smells, and sounds. The basic parameters of generating virtual reality are similar, objects have to be life sized and there has to be some tracking mechanism, so when the viewer’s perspective changes what he or she sees also changes.

A key component of this is a concept known as immersion. Immersion includes depth and breadth of information. These deal with how a user interacts with their virtual environment and how effectively that environment is presented to them. There’s also another concept known as latency, which is the lag time between when a user changes their perspective to when the new perspective is clear. If the delay is too long, the immersive experience can be ruined. One important consideration regarding virtual reality is that while many of the recent models require or offer some form of a headset, a headset is not required to experience VR.

The Virtual Reality Industry

Presently

The number and quality of VR options on the market already vary widely. On the simplistic side is Google Cardboard, literally a cardboard box and a pair of lenses, which with a smart phone placed inside can give the illusion of virtual reality. At the other end of the spectrum are headsets like those produced by Oculus Rift. Oculus was initially funded through the crowd-sourcing site Kickstarter, until it was bought by Facebook for $2 billion dollars.

The Rift however, is not alone on the high end of virtual reality. Several rival headsets are also in production including the Samsung Gear, HTC Vive, and the Sony Morpheus. Perhaps the most intriguing rival is Microsoft’s HoloLens. Unlike the other headsets, which strictly focus on generating a virtual reality, the Microsoft headset is capable of augmented reality. Augmented reality is combining elements of the virtual and real world together.

Regardless of whichever headset a user prefers, there are number of uses for virtual reality already. Aside from some of the uses mentioned earlier such as gaming, treating PTSD, and training pilots, VR is also becoming valuable in sports. In football training, players can relive past situations in the hopes of better being able to diagnose how to perform in a certain situation in the future.

VR is helping dentists train as well, by offering an environment where they can learn without causing any real or feared damage to their patients. Virtual reality is also being employed in everything from public speaking training to helping people rehabilitate from strokes.

On the Horizon

So, what is next from this technology? Like with the advent of 3D movies, one of the first impacted fields will likely be the film industry. In July of this year, Oculus signed a deal with Felix and Paul Studios to produce VR videos. There are other deals also in place for companies like Samsung and Google, who are using their own VR devices to provide customers with virtual experiences.

Along with movies, another area that is increasingly incorporating VR is the gaming industry. In fact Facebook’s Oculus Rift headset was developed originally for video games. There are also a number of competitors, including Sony and Microsoft, who are also planning to use their own headsets along with their video game systems.

Additionally, it has been suggested that VR can play more of a role in everyday pursuits. For example, imagine a courtroom setting where jurors could potentially put on one of these headsets and be transported to a crime scene so they could more clearly appreciate the facts of a case.

Conversely, while Facebook and its competitors see VR as a medium accessed through a headset that may not be its final form. In fact according to a study by Siemens Research people completing tasks guided by one of the headsets are actually less successful than those simply following a paper manual. The article suggests an alternative to the headset in general. This comes in the form of improving camera and display technology for a more immersive experience.

For any of this to be accomplished though, the major challenges of VR must still be confronted. First is solving issues with tracking–a major problem for early versions of VR is that they couldn’t accurately respond to a user. Secondly, environments themselves must also be developed that are complex enough to grab a user’s attention, but can also match what the user perceives, meaning he or she should hear wind if they see a tornado. The following video looks at virtual reality and its future:

Conclusion

VR has certainly made leaps and bounds over the decades, evolving from 3D images to headsets that can increasingly mimic natural surroundings. Nevertheless, for all the progress made, there is still much farther to go. Most of the tech heavyweights have put considerable resources behind this technology, but there are still few early returns.

Additionally, even when these headsets start hitting the market in earnest, either later this year or early next, their actual availability may still be limited to a number of factors, such as cost. The Oculus headset for example, is projected to run for as much as $1500 dollars. Additionally, precisely how VR will be used remains a mystery. While there is talk of it infiltrating all corners of modern life, the initial efforts seem limited to video games, videos, and to enthusiasts. Even the idea of a headset is not set is stone, as other traditional uses such as screens present strong alternatives.  Virtual reality may one day be the end all, be all of technology. For now though, all most people can do is sit back, relax and imagine a world where VR reigns supreme.

Resources

How Stuff Works: How Virtual Reality Works

The Week: 6 Innovative Uses for Virtual Reality

Tom’s Hardware: The Past, Present and Future of VR and AR

University of Illinois: Virtual Reality History

CNET: Google Cardboard Reviewed

Wareable: The Best VR Headsets

Read Write: Virtual Reality Films Could Put the Whole Industry in the Spotlight

Game Rant: Virtual Reality in Gaming

Forbes: No More Headgames

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Making Reality Virtual: The Rising Tide of Virtual Reality appeared first on Law Street.

One increasingly important tool used by law enforcement and various organizations is forensic imaging software. This technique can be used to create images of victims whose bodies are unidentifiable, photos that display how a missing person is projected to look in present day, or to bring to life skeletal remains in the hope of finding someone who recognizes the deceased. A recent Massachusetts case involving an unidentified young girl nicknamed “Baby Doe” has once again validated the importance of investing in investigative technology.

One group pioneering this technology is the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a nonprofit organization that works with law enforcement agencies and families to aid in cases of missing and exploited children. The NCMEC utilizes a variety of functions to fulfill its mission of helping to find, aid, and protect children. The agency has had great success in the past through its initiatives, as it has assisted in the recovery of more than 208,000 children.

Computer generated imagery is a relatively new technology, although it has been used heavily in recent years in cases of missing or unidentified children and has proven to be vital in investigations. This unit was first instituted by the NCMEC in 1990, and has been used so far in 6,000 age progressions, 1,300 of them leading to children being found or identified through the pictures. CNN reports, “forensic imaging and age progression are often fairly accurate and can help find the missing or unidentified children.” When comparing images created by forensic artists to real life photographs, it is evident that they are very close to the real thing, and are an integral tool in most cases.

For example, a recent case in Massachusetts has renewed focus on the benefits of forensic imaging technology. The remains of an unidentified young girl, who is believed to have only been about four years old and has been dubbed “Baby Doe,” were found in a trash bag on a Boston Harbor beach about three weeks ago. Even though the following computer-generated image of her has been seen by millions of people, authorities have had little to no luck in their efforts to identify her. This tragic case has mystified law enforcement and captivated the hearts of Americans nationwide, as people continue to search for any clues that could lead to the identification of this girl.

Christi Andrews of our forensic imaging unit answers questions about her #BabyDoe computer generated image on @AC360 pic.twitter.com/REcBzAsxWR

— NCMEC (@MissingKids) July 14, 2015

"How can nobody miss her?" The plight of a "Baby Doe" found in a trash bag has moved millions: http://t.co/pucotZhcuI pic.twitter.com/fqE8fJbau8

— CNN (@CNN) July 9, 2015

Authorities are working furiously to find any possible lead that could help them to identify the girl, perplexed as to how no one has recognized her yet. It is not clear whether her death was accidental or intentional, and investigators are desperate for any information at all that could lead to her identity or the cause of her death. Law enforcement in Massachusetts has teamed up with the NCMEC since this agency is well trained in these types of situations and offers many useful resources, including its expertise in forensic imaging.

The image of Baby Doe was created by Christi Andrews, a forensic artist who works with the NCMEC and who tried to make the face of the girl look as realistic as possible using Adobe Photoshop. In order for Andrews to join the Forensic Imaging Team and become a specialist, a job she has had for twelve years now, she had to first receive extensive training in order to master the software. She constructed the image by studying the precise details and photos from the autopsy. The picture has been shared hundreds of thousands of times on multiple different social media platforms and seen by over fifty million people, but unfortunately, no valuable tips have arisen.

This type of software is instrumental in many cases because it assists investigators in their efforts to identify deceased victims, create realistic, up-to-date photos of missing people that can be used when searching for them, and can garner useful information from the public once released. In the case of Baby Doe, Andrews was limited to pictures and information given from the coroner, although when creating age progression images, artists can often utilize pictures of family members to analyze similarities and use this to generate life-like images. Our culture’s obsession with taking photos has actually proven to be useful when it comes to creating these age progression images because it gives the specialists more to study and compare to.

After these images are produced, they are distributed to the masses via a variety of platforms, such as social media, billboards, flyers, through news stations, or other sources. The goal is to have as many people view it as possible so that the likelihood of someone recognizing the subject and contacting the police increases. This tool is especially helpful in cases of children who have been missing for many years, because the age progression feature gives investigators a glimpse of what the children might look like currently. This is crucial because not only does it increase the chances of other people recognizing this person, but also the missing person themself might see it. There might be children out there who were abducted at too young of an age to remember and are raised in a new family, so if they were to see these images displaying missing children that resemble them, this might cause them to recover old memories or even come forward if they suspect that they could be the child. Forensic imaging software is a critical tool for a multitude of reasons, although most importantly, it can be used to solve cases that seemingly have come to a screeching halt.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Forensic Imaging Software: A Tool to Break Cold Cases? appeared first on Law Street.

Innovation is only imagined in the face of a problem without a solution. Take the electric car, for example. An electric car could save drivers gas money–you get Tesla. Let’s create an app that brings a car to your location on demand–you get Uber.

That’s what tech startups do: they brainstorm new innovations to help overcome challenges. Sometimes they can find homes in surprising places. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar is becoming a new and fast-growing land for tech startups.

After nearly 50 years under a military junta, Myanmar transitioned to a civilian-led government in 2011. Under President Thein Sein, the government initiated a series of political and economic reforms leading to the opening of the long-isolated country. Reforms included releasing political prisoners, reaching preliminary peace agreements with major armed ethnic groups,  providing better protections for basic human rights, and gradually reducing restrictions on the press.

Out of all Southeast Asian countries, why Myanmar?

After such a long isolation, things are changing very quickly. When the military junta was ruling the country in the early 2000s, a SIM card could cost $2,000; today it costs $1.50. The government took a $105 million loan from Japan in order to upgrade the local telecommunication infrastructure, and it is expected that nearly everyone will be carrying smartphones and tablets by the end of 2015. There is room for competition and new products, and the tech community recognizes that.

One of the parties helping to shape the entrepreneurial ecosystem is Sydney-based Pollenizer.

Pollenizer’s “Startup Science” is a framework designed to build incubation and acceleration programs that help entrepreneurs and big companies all over the world get started with high-growth, tech-powered businesses. Part of its support is providing services such as management training or office space.

Here are some of the latest featured developments in Myanmar:

• Carmudi, the Carmax of Myanmar: an online vehicle marketplace.
• Hush, a mobile app that allows you to post anonymous messages based on location. You are then able to view what others have posted while in the same location.
• Harmoneat, Myanmar’s first food truck. Harmoneat runs cooking classes and other tourist services to finance the operations of a community food truck.
• Nexy Keyboard, “the first iOS8 keyboard in Myanmar” that allows users to type in “Myanglish.”
• SmartSales, a point-of-sale (POS) system for restaurants that runs on batter power to overcome power outages.
• Fyre, web-based software that helps businesses set up online stores and mobile apps without needing any programming knowledge.

With celebrity entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and record-breaking valuations leading the headlines, it’s easy to forget the markets that are at the beginning of their tech revolutions and ready for explosion. The Myanmar market is very big as there are many places people still use pen and paper to conduct business. This new frontier for entrepreneurs has an exciting future.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Myanmar the Next Big Destination for Startups? appeared first on Law Street.

Google has been working on developing technology for a driverless car and now rumors are swirling that Apple, too, may be working on Steve Jobs’ infamous driverless iCar.

Google introduced the first fully-functioning prototype of a self-driving car in December 2014 after several less-functioning attempts by engineers over the years, according to Time. In a post on the project’s webpage, Google wrote that engineers had now managed to successfully combine elements of self-driving technology and laser-guided steering with car parts from conventional suppliers to create the working prototype.

Tesla and Uber have also reportedly been working on driverless technology and the Wall Street Journal reported that Apple was getting into the game, with “several hundred” employees now working on a minivan-like electric car. The project is still just a rumor, but in true mystery fashion, comes with its own codename: “Titan.”

Sridhar Lakshmanan, engineering professor at the University Michigan-Dearborn, recently told Time that there are three crucial elements required to turn a regular car into an automated one:  “A GPS system,” “a system to recognize dynamic conditions on the roads,” and “a way to turn the information from the other two systems into action on your ride.”

“What the autonomous system is supposed to achieve, in its full maturity, is the best of a computer, which is able to process large reams of data, and the ability of a human being to be adaptive in a new or known environment,” Lakshmanan told Time.

But why? Have we really become so lazy that we don’t even want to drive ourselves places anymore? Personally, I use long drives as valuable “me time,” and call me paranoid, but I’m just not sure I could ever really trust a computer to drive me anywhere safely. If this driverless technology becomes a market reality, will it really be safe and will people really use it?

A Forbes article suggested self-driving could allow for more work to be done, more tweets to be sent, and more web posts to be posted during commutes. So if you are displeased with your daily tweet ratio, perhaps a driverless car is the answer to cutting out the time-consuming aspect of manual driving.

Beyond social advantages, driverless technology could also greatly diminish the number of traffic accidents, and thereby the number of traffic accident deaths, each year and improve traffic flow.

“In a world without crashes, cars wouldn’t need tons of reinforced steel, excessive airbags, and other features that make them so heavy, and by definition, lighter cars are more efficient cars,” noted Forbes.

A driverless car may not be as passive and safe as some people might think, though. Greg Fitch, research scientist at the Center for Automated Vehicle Systems at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute told Tech Republic that to ensure safety, vehicle manufacturers are still expecting car owners to be alert while driving, with a hand on the wheel and foot ready to brake. “Believe it or not, that car could fail at any time,” Fitch said.

It seems at least some U.K. drivers share my sense of wariness on the issue of driverless cars. Some are even “horrified” by the idea. “Four in ten Britons would not trust an autonomous car to drive safely, believing it would jeopardize the welfare of drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians, a survey from price comparison site uSwitch.com found,” reported the Telegraph.

I suppose it remains to be seen whether we will all be traveling around in driverless vehicles in a few years. Now we just have to wait for the pilotless commercial planes and cook-less kitchens so we can all have even more time for those tweets and web posts.

Morgan Eichensehr

The post Driverless Cars on the Horizon, But Who Actually Wants to Ride in Them? appeared first on Law Street.

Right now there’s a controversy over emails in the U.S. government. It all started with the news that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email address to conduct her job in the State Department. However, the controversy has continued with politicians and prominent figures from both sides of the aisle coming out in support or condemnation, and raising what could have been an interesting conversation about the use of email in our government.

In terms of Clinton’s emails, it’s unclear whether or not what she did was technically illegal. However, it’s definitely frowned upon, especially in light of the scrutiny that Clinton herself levied against the private email accounts used in the Bush Administration. That being said, Clinton has now turned over many pages of her correspondence, roughly 55,000 pages worth. Some of the criticism toward Clinton has to do with concerns that the American people still don’t have full information over the terrorist attack against the American embassy in Benghazi, Libya in 2012. However, Representative Aaron Schiff (D-CA) has said that the committee looking into the Benghazi incident got everything they asked for from Clinton, and that there was nothing that they found probative.

Colin Powell, another former Secretary of State, has also come to Clinton’s defense, explaining with regard to his emails:

I don’t have any to turn over, I did not keep a cache of them. I did not print them off. I do not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files. And, in fact, a lot of the emails that came out of my personal account went into the State Department system. They were addressed to State Department employees and the state.gov domain. But I don’t know if the servers at the State Department captured those or not. They were all unclassified and most of them, I think, are pretty benign. So I’m not terribly concerned even if they were able to recover them.

It’s not just her predecessors who are weighing in on this debate. While some Democrats have shown strong support, others have urged her to give an explanation for why her personal account was used during that period. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), for example, declared that Clinton needs to explain exactly what happened with the email mix up, and emphasized that continued silence would just hurt her moving forward.

On the other hand, some Republicans have taken advantage of the confusion and controversy to slam the likely 2016 presidential candidate. That’s to be expected, of course, but some have also taken the opportunity to prove how different they are than Clinton–and presumably by extension, all Democrats. The most obvious example is Senator Lindsey Graham, who on “Meet the Press” this week told everyone “I don’t email. No, you can have every email I’ve ever sent. I’ve never sent one.”

In some ways I suppose that’s not that surprising. As Philip Bump of the Washington Post pointed out, 15 percent of American adults don’t use the Internet. That being said, Graham is also on the Senate Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, so his admission that he doesn’t use email could definitely be considered troublesome.

Graham wasn’t the only Republican figure who proclaimed that he shies away from e-mail. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) of 2008 election fame explained that he doesn’t use e-mail because:

I’m afraid that if I was emailing, given my solid, always calm temperament that I might email something that I might regret. You could send out an email that you would regret later on and would be maybe taken out of context And frankly, I don’t have any trouble communicating with my constituents without it.

This entire debate truly strikes me as odd, because what could have actually been a productive discussion about the ethics of communicating with private or business email addresses has sparked a lot of other, significantly less productive talking points. Besides feeding into the incredibly inane Benghazi speculation that seems like it will go on forever, our politicians are now bragging about their detachment from technology. Are we suddenly going to have all the potential 2016 candidates proclaiming whether or not they use e-mail? It’s a pretty ubiquitous tool that most of us use in daily life–I don’t think it’s really a political position.

I’ve long thought that the 2016 elections were going to be particularly nasty–even nastier than 2008 and 2012 in many ways. I think we’re starting to see the beginning of what will be a lot of highly publicized debates over, quite frankly, nothing of consequence.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Clinton Email Controversy: Here Comes the Partisan Bickering appeared first on Law Street.

With the widespread use of cellphones emerging in the late 1990s, the last few generations have been the first to have their every move documented for public consumption. Since then, cellphones have been ever present at many important events: proms, graduations, college orientation, and for first relationships. Still, within the last decade or so, cell phones changed from portable phones to portable computers with cameras attached, giving people the ability to take, edit, and share photos instantaneously. This ability has led to an increase in something known as “sexting,” defined as “sending nude, sexual or indecent photos (or ‘selfies’) using a computer, mobile phone or other mobile device.” In some cases, it can also include written messages or even videos.

Some states have adopted laws that have severe penalties aimed at teenagers who send, receive, or save such photos. These laws are not as severe as if they were legal adults possessing photos of an underage teen, but they are still serious consequences of which to be aware.

Dawn of a New Legal Era

Sexting laws are a relatively new concept, so that’s why they are somewhat murky to most Americans. Since 2009, many states have adopted teen sexting laws, and each year more states consider bills on the issue. States that already have laws include: Wyoming, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and Indiana. Several other states are also considering introducing sexting laws through their legislatures. Most states focus on teen sexting, though there are a few that also legislate other aspects of the activity. As teen sexting spreads and becomes a worry among parents, it’s probable that these laws will be adopted on a wider scale. That doesn’t mean that it is entirely legal in those states without sexting laws, however. In the states without any sexting laws, teens who sext may still see consequences as a result of the pre-existing laws that target child pornography.

What are states doing about teen sexting?

There are some states that have adopted laws specifically for sexting. These laws have explicitly targeted the images sent among teenagers. For example, Connecticut’s sexting law targets teens who create, save, or spread photos of themselves or others.

Here’s an example of how Pennsylvania approaches sexting, as it is illegal for teens ages 12-17 to posses the naked photo of another person in the same age range. According to a Criminal Defense Lawyer resource page:

For example, both a teen who sends a photo of a nude classmate and one who receives the photo could be prosecuted under Pennsylvania law. Teen sexting is punished more severely if the defendant takes or shares a nude photo of another teen without the teen’s permission, and in order to harass that person or cause him or her emotional distress. For example, a boy who shares nude photos of his ex-girlfriend after they break up could be charged with a more serious crime. Pennsylvania’s teen sexting law does not apply to images taken or distributed for commercial purposes, or images of sexual intercourse, penetration, or masturbation, or any other hardcore sexual images.

State laws differ significantly, however, depending on things like ages of majority and previous cases. Louisiana won’t allow anyone under 17 to send or keep pictures. Texas is one of the states that makes some allowances: if the minor sexts another minor, it’s not considered a crime, as long as the recipient’s age is within two years of the sender and the exchange is consensual.

For more information on your state, visit Mobile Safeguard’s Comprehensive list.

What do you do if someone sends this type of message to you?

Teen sexting laws prohibit both sending and receiving explicit images, which can be quite a gray area for some people, as well as some courts. How can you stop someone from sending you a photo? There’s a definite difference between requesting a picture and simply receiving one from another teen. The difference also comes from what you do when you get that picture.

Because of the grayness and the ability for sabotage, sexting laws typically prohibit “receiving and keeping” any explicit images. This means that if a teen or adult receives an image from a teen, the receiver must delete the message immediately in order to avoid legal trouble. To protect oneself, it would also be a good idea for the recipient to send a message stating that the image is not wanted or requested.

Federal Law and Sexting

Depending on the circumstances of the images in question, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

According to Criminal Defense Lawyer:

Depending on the circumstances, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 makes it illegal to produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to distribute any obscene visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Knowing possession of such material—without intent to distribute—is also a crime under the PROTECT Act. (18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1).)

Federal law also criminalizes causing a minor to take part in sexually explicit conduct in order to visually depict that conduct. Parents who allow this behaviorcan also be prosecuted. (18 U.S.C. § 2251.)

That doesn’t mean that we’ll likely see federal prosecution of juveniles for sexting. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) generally posits that, where possible, juvenile cases should remain in state courts.

What happens in states that don’t have sexting laws?

For those states that do not specifically legislate against sexting, the act is usually covered under child pornography laws. This includes creating, possessing, or distributing the photos of anyone underage. This means that the child who takes the picture can be in legal trouble. Many people question the punishment for these young children, especially when they may have been coerced into sending the photos. There has been much debate about what the penalties should be for teenagers who send those photos. Some think they should not face the same penalties as those who are over 18, especially because it can impact everything from college choices to potential careers and living situations. Those who argue against this type of treatment want some of the lesser penalties listed below for teens who are caught sexting.

What are the possible penalties for sexting?

The penalties for teen sexting involve a lot of red tape, juvenile and adult courts, and also include various criminal laws. Overall there is a lot of coordination required anytime there are juveniles in the justice system, which is why some states have specific laws against sexting. Usually, it takes a contentious case to prompt the creation of a specific law.

Juveniles

When a juvenile commits a criminal offense through sexting, that offense is typically handled by the juvenile court system. Juvenile courts have wider discretion in the kinds of penalties they impose. Some of the penalties could include a warning, fines, having to serve community service, completing counseling, probation, or even a sentence to a juvenile facility.

Adults

If the person is 18 or older, he or she will be charged as an adult and could face incarceration, fines, or being entered onto the sex offender registry.

Conclusion

What many consider to be fun and harmless flirting online or over the phone can actually become a severe crime with consequences for both parties involved. It’s best to know where your state stands on the issue and to be smart about it. Sending pictures or messages via your phone opens up the doors for a world of trouble and heartache.

 Resources

 Primary

Connecticut State Police: Connecticut Sexting and Teens

National Criminal Justice Reference Service: Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act

Additional

Criminal Defense Lawyer: Teen Sexting in Pennsylvania

Daily Mail: Parents of ‘Sexting’ Teenagers Can Now Be Punished in Texas

Aggressive Criminal Defense: Sexting Laws and Legal Information

Washington Post: Stop Demonizing Teen Sexting. In Most Cases it is Completely Harmless

CNN: Chances Are Your Teen Has Sexted

 Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to credit select information to Criminal Defense Lawyer. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teen Sexting: What are the Legal Consequences? appeared first on Law Street.

As more and more young people become interested in what is going on in the Supreme Court, there has been a call for cameras to be allowed inside the deliberations. With an especially important verdict on gay marriage rights for all 50 states coming in April, as well as many other heavy decisions, it seems like there’s no time like the present to install cameras in the hallowed halls’ however, two justices–Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor–recently spoke against the move, making it unclear if the American people will ever have a glimpse into the court’s proceedings.

There is such transparency for some courts and cases–especially those involving celebrities and high-profile individuals. A group of media and legal organizations have joined together to form an organization called the Coalition for Court Transparency, and it petitioned Chief Justice John Roberts to start televising the arguments occurring in the nation’s capital. His response? “There are no plans to change the Court’s current practices.”

Throughout the last two decades or so, the justices have given many different reasons for banning cameras inside of the courtroom, including: cameras will encourage “showy” testimonials, the media will use embarrassing sound bites, or that people will misunderstand and judge without looking into the details; however, there are some who speak of the importance of having some transparency within the Supreme Court because it would encourage Americans to learn more about their judicial system: “There’s a real hunger out there from people to know more about the Supreme Court and the justices,” said Ariane de Vogue, Supreme Court correspondent for ABC News. “I think it would be a marvelous educational opportunity.”

Read on to learn about the considerations that must be taken into account during the debate over whether or not to put cameras in the Supreme Court.

Why should we break tradition?

The Supreme Court stands virtually alone when it comes to cameras inside the courtroom. States make their own rules when it comes to this issue, but many do allow them–as do the highest courts in some nations. Some states even livestream proceedings.

Jerry Goldman, director of the Oyez Project at the Chicago-Kent College of Law at the Illinois Institute of Technology says that the Supreme Court is simply behind the times and always will be unless there is some new blood within its walls: “It’s just uncomfortable with change,” said Goldman, whose website catalogs oral argument audio. “They’re always in the caboose.”

Another professor, Sonja West from the University of Georgia School of Law, sees it a different way: the Supreme Court Justices fear breaking something that already works well, afraid what such a monumental change will bring: “They feel very much like the guardians of a very important institution,” said West, who wrote about the Court’s camera policy in the Brigham Young University Law Review. West also says that the Court is so staunchly traditional because of the respect that shroud of secrecy gives–and respect is a main source of power.

Yet another professor, this one of Constitutional Law at Georgia State, Eric Segall, argues that because the justices are government officials, they should not have the choice of whether or not to be transparent. He suggests that the Court should have the burden of proving why cameras should not be allowed, and not the other way around. “This is a public hearing,” Segall said. “It’s open to the public. It’s material. It’s relevant, and people want to televise it. We should be allowed to see it.”

“We have three branches of government,” Dahlia Lithwick, who covers the Supreme Court for Slate, said about camera access. “Two of them are totally transparent, and one of them is completely secret, and that’s a problem.”

Why might the Supreme Court not want cameras?

There have been a few arguments made repeatedly by the Supreme Court justices and those who support them in their calls for privacy. Each one has reasons why it’s a good idea to retain some mystery, but there are also reasons why the need for transparency may overcome the possible adverse effects.

The Public Will Misunderstand What is Going On

Justices have traditionally opposed cameras because people will not understand the role of oral arguments and will jump to conclusions and “root” for an outcome of the case. Justice Scalia has even gone on record to say that the complexity and interworking of the law “is why the University of Chicago Law Review is not sold at a 7-Eleven.”

Sotomayor told a reporter that arguments should not be televised in part because most viewers “don’t take the time to appreciate what the Court is doing.”

However, to some, this view has it backward. Broadcasts of arguments would help the public learn about the Court’s operations, according to Segall. “The more we see Justice [Antonin] Scalia being obnoxious, the more we see Justice [Anthony] Kennedy acting like a law professor, the more we see Justice [Clarence] Thomas sitting there and doing nothing, the more we have insight into the people who work for us.”

Still, there is a chance that people will misunderstand what is happening with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has always had problems when it comes to public opinion with consistent periods of low approval ratings, it is easy to see why that could be a fear. A simple misunderstanding could create mistrust between the public and the Court, undermining their effectiveness.

Even for those who are college educated, law isn’t typically a mandatory course like math or even political science. It will be difficult for the general public to grasp some of what is happening within the Supreme Court.

Picking and Choosing

Justices have also feared that putting video cameras into the proceedings will allows journalists to take quotes from the hearing and use them as sound bites for laughs and shock.

Kennedy once said he does not want the Court to become part of “the national entertainment network.”

And Scalia told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “[F]or every ten people who sat through our proceedings gavel to gavel, there would be 10,000 who would see nothing but a thirty-second takeout from one of the proceedings, which I guarantee you would not be representative of what we do.”

Pretty much every news network uses videos of politicians in order to prove points–and taking things out of context seems to be the norm. So, is there something to be said about fearing the editing process? Of course–as with anything. However, it will be up to the journalist to uphold ethics when reporting the news. What comes out of the mouths of the Justices isn’t always how they truly feel or how they want the case to go. Any footage that is taken from the proceedings will have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Cameras and Audio

In addition to video imaging from within the Supreme Court, there has also been a ban on audio recording from within the chambers. In the past, audio recordings have been doctored and then misreported by news outlets, leading to headaches. That has slackened some, and audio recordings are now available after the verdict has been announced. Sometimes they will release same-day audio for high-profile cases, but this is extremely rare.

Notably, one can still get same-day written transcripts of the oral arguments and opinion announcements; however, these do not take things like tone and delivery into consideration. The Justices have learned to choose their words wisely so that they do not come across wrong on paper.

Sotomayor discussed the problems with all reporting to The New York Times, saying:

I don’t think most viewers take the time to actually delve into either the briefs or the legal arguments to appreciate what the court is doing,” she said. “They speculate about, oh, the judge favors this point rather than that point. Very few of them understand what the process is, which is to play devil’s advocate.

It obviously took a while to get to the point where audio recordings are allowed as well, and it might seem like they’re pretty much the same thing as video recordings; however, they’re probably less likely to be mass-distributed on platforms such as news shows, and therefore, less likely to be misconstrued.

Performance Issues

There are also concerns that if cameras are brought into the Supreme Court, the advocates will pander to them. Instead of focusing on the merit of their arguments, they will try to be more convincing and flashy. That being said, that worry gives very little credit to the attorneys arguing the cases–their arguments would still be what the Supreme Court decided on, so there would be little value in creating a performance for outside audiences.

Conclusion

Putting cameras in the Supreme Court is going to take some work from everyone involved. It isn’t going to be something that can have a seamless transition and just happen overnight. Instead, it is something that journalists, viewers, lawyers, and justices will have to come to terms with, and change their behaviors accordingly.

Whatever the change is, there needs to be more transparency in a system that is broken. The Coalition for Court Transparency claims:

Currently, to attend Supreme Court hearings, individuals must stand in line outside the building and wait to be ushered in. There are roughly 400 seats in the courtroom, only a fraction of which are available to the public. That means countless Americans hoping to view the arguments are unable to, especially in cases that have broad public interest, such as the marriage equality, Obamacare, voting rights, and affirmative action cases in recent terms. For these types of cases, interested citizens must often line up hours, if not days, in advance of the arguments. In some instances they have to compete with “line-standers” whose employers have been paid thousands of dollars to hold a powerful or wealthy person’s place in line.

Stay tuned for the next few months as the changes are sure to come quickly.

Resources

Primary

Oyez Project: Latest 

Supreme Court: Transcripts and Recordings of Oral Arguments

Additional 

BYU Law Review: The Monster in the Courtroom

Slate: Amicus: Cameras in the Courtroom

Open SCOTUS: Coalition Letter

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: Holding Out Against Cameras at the Supreme Court

National Constitution Center: Justices’ Comments Cast More Doubts on Supreme Court Cameras 

USA Today: Justices Rock it on the Road, If You Can Find Them

Blaze: New Push to Get Video Cameras in Supreme Court

NPR: Once Under Wraps, Supreme Court Audio Trove Now Online

Slate: Punch and Judge Judy

Tampa Bay Times: Sotomayor No Longer Favors Video Cameras at Supreme Court

CNN: Supreme Court Agrees to Take on Same-Sex Marriage Issue

Slate: Supreme Court Justices Are Not Really Judges

Daily Signal: Public Opinion and the Supreme Court

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Televised Trials: Should Cameras Be Allowed in the Supreme Court? appeared first on Law Street.

Almost six months after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, we’re still having a conversation about the potential of police officers wearing body cameras to ensure accountability and answer the questions that naturally spring up after a police shooting. But will body cameras be enough? A new app called “Alibi” doesn’t think so–and it wants to be the “body camera” of the private citizen, as well as so much more.

Right now, Alibi is only available on Android devices; it’s a $0.99 download. Alibi essentially serves as a mobile witness–depending on how you set it, it can record video, audio, still images, and GPS locations. It doesn’t store this data forever; unless you tell it otherwise, it dumps everything after an hour, or else the storage on a phone would be filled up way too quickly. One of the biggest challenges in developing the app came from making sure that it wouldn’t immediately drain a phone battery. But because the video being recorded is so low-caliber, they’ve managed to make it so even running video all day, it only takes up 1.2 times the battery consumed during normal usage.

So why would a normal person want a device that, to be completely honest, seems a bit paranoid? There are plenty of reasons. The reasoning that inspired the app itself is pretty simple–many people in the U.S. are worried about the increase in police brutality and profiling. Alibi founder Ryan Saleh explained his inspiration for the app in an interview, saying:

The way that Alibi came to be was that I was pulled over for a traffic ticket in New York City. Two cops came up to my windshield and knocked on the windshield, and one of them’s just talking, totally normal, and the other one takes the liberty of asking me to roll down the window and sticks his head in the car and pokes a flashlight around. I’m a straight-laced person, I have nothing to hide, and it didn’t bother me that much at the time, but I was thinking about it, and was like, ‘You know, that probably wasn’t legal.’

I never would have thought to pull out a camera and record the guy, and that probably would have caused more pain than it was worth in the situation, but the number of times in my life that I wish I was recording something — you don’t think to do it at the time, but you go back and you wish you were recording something — is outrageous. I said to myself, ‘You know, we all walk around with a device in our pocket that has a GPS in it, a microphone and a camera.’

Obviously, interactions with police aren’t the only thing that Alibi would be used to record. It could actually be used in reverse–as a tool for the police. Obviously, a 99-cent app is cheaper than a body camera; Alibi could be required by police departments in lieu of body cameras.

Other things that Alibi could be used for are plentiful. It could be used to prove a literal alibi with the GPS and pictures function. It could be used to record something you saw as a passerby. But it could also be used in really creepy, negative ways as well. Imagine if everything you did or said could be recorded by someone who had a smartphone. It could easily be used for nefarious purposes. There are also legal issues here–there are certain laws that restrict photographing people in private places, or places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Having a constantly recording device could break those laws.

Alibi definitely has its practical uses, and it’s an intriguing solution to the issue of American concerns about our police force. That being said, it’s also a little creepy, and may not be something that will worm its way into daily life too quickly. Privacy is still an important right, and while Alibi may protect other rights, privacy can’t be forgotten.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alibi: New App Aims to Record Everything, Including the Police appeared first on Law Street.

In a lot of ways it’s easier than ever for students to cheat on exams. Many students now have small handheld devices that we can use to access pretty much the whole of human knowledge–I’m talking about smartphones, of course. Smartphones have been banned from our classrooms, particularly during exam time, since they became popular. But now schools are trying to keep up by banning the latest form of mobile technology: smartwatches. For some schools, the easiest way to do that is to ban watches altogether.

Right now, the bans on watches seem to be catching on in the United Kingdom, with the University of London and London’s City University both banning the accessory.

It makes total sense that a school would want to ban smartwatches. They could obviously be used to store notes or cheat sheets that could be pulled up with just a flick of the finger. But it goes further than that–the whole idea of the technology is that it acts as a sort of extension of a smartphone. You can set them up so they give you certain notifications–for example, emails, or text messages. So, you could have a friend text you information at a particular time. Or, more simply, set up a timed email or message to send you information at a particular time during your test. Depending on what watch you have, you could also look up information during the test itself.

Some schools have banned the smartwatches themselves. Weber State University, for example, a college in Utah, has banned smartwatches during tests. It’s not just colleges, either. The College Board, the organization that runs SAT testing, has already banned them as well.

Why would schools ban all wrist watches though, in the hopes of catching just a few students who have smartwatches and hope to use them to cheat? Well, smartwatches look pretty snazzy, pretty much like real watches. If you’re not familiar with a smartwatch, as some professors may not be, it would be difficult to figure it out by just glancing at the device. It would also be a tough task for professors who teach large lecture halls with hundreds of students, and end up being a waste of time.

That being said, I think there are definitely downsides to a ban on watches as well. For one, it’s a pretty common accessory–it would be easy to forget to take off a watch the day of an exam. Secondly, any classrooms that banned watches would basically have to ensure that a clock is present in the classroom. Being able to manage time effectively is an important testing skill–many professors design tests that will take up more time than the class is allotted, if you aren’t careful. While banning watches may prevent incidental cases of cheating, it’s simpler said than done.

This is yet another example of the ways in which technology, while great, can run straight into commonsense rules. While smartwatches certainly are a threat to the integrity of our classrooms, schools will have to be very careful when it comes to figuring out the right way to mitigate that danger.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Smartwatch Scare: Will Schools Ban Watches to Prevent Cheating? appeared first on Law Street.

Uber is a great way to get from point A to point B, but the company may have a rocky road ahead of it in 2015. There are a lot of lawsuits pending against the ridesharing company, and while none of them seem that damaging, it does raise a question: why is Uber so prone to lawsuits?

One of the pending legal struggles against Uber involves its habit of sending incessant text messages to users. Uber has been named in a class action suit filed in U.S. District Court based in San Francisco. The suit argues that Uber has been abusing text-messaging marketing and bombarding people’s phones with unwanted messages. This is illegal ever since a change in FCC polices that interprets a law differently, namely that it:

Restricts telephone solicitations and the use of automated telephone equipment to include text messages sent to a mobile phone, unless the consumer previously gave consent to receive the message or the message is sent for emergency purposes. The ban applies even if consumers have not placed their mobile phone numbers on the national Do-Not-Call list.

Uber isn’t the only company to be on the receiving end of such a lawsuit–CVS, Jiffy Lube, Steve Madden, and Burger King have also been sued for doing the same or a similar thing. This class action lawsuit is asking for over $5 million in total for the text messages, although a judge will have to rule on whether or not to allow the legal proceedings to move forward as a class-action lawsuit.

That’s not the only time that Uber may see the inside of a courtroom this year. There’s currently an ongoing lawsuit about the tipping procedures used by the company. The lawsuit claims that Uber advertises that 20 percent of its fees go to tips for the drivers, but that it’s actually misleading its customers and keeping a substantial amount. This case, which also has the potential to become a class action suit, was originally filed by Caren Ehret of Illinois. She claims that because Uber’s policies are misleading, she, and other customers, ending up overpaying. This case has been stretching on for a while, as there has been some back and forth over whether or not the plaintiff can have access to certain of Uber CEO Travis Kalanick’s emails. It was just ruled that the plaintiff will be able to see those messages, and the case is continuing to move forward.

A third recent lawsuit against Uber involves the company’s “safe ride” fee that’s charged to its UberX customers. UberX is a ride sourced through Uber that uses the driver’s own car. This lawsuit argues that UberX is misleading its customers about what the “safe ride” fee does. According to Uber’s website, the safe ride fee is used to ensure that the drivers are up to industry standards, that they have the proper training, and that they pass background checks; however, this lawsuit, filed by one California and one Michigan resident, says that Uber’s safety features actually fall below industry standards.

These aren’t the only lawsuits with which Uber will have to contend in the coming months and years, and it’s not just in the courtroom that the company will see trouble. It’s also seen PR backlashes from controversies ranging from charging surge prices during the Sydney hostage crisis in late 2014, to sexual assault allegations in Chicago and New Delhi.

To be honest, I probably won’t stop using Uber, and I have a feeling most of my peers won’t either. It’s cheaper than cabs, and incredibly convenient. It’s a company that truly does have the ability to revolutionize transportation. But in order to get to that point, the truly revolutionary point I mean, it’s going to have to be careful. There are a lot of bumps in the road ahead for Uber–if it can weather them, it’ll be in good shape.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uber Will Have a Rough Ride in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we really appreciate entrepreneurial spirit–especially when it creates cool new technology we can fawn over. Since Christmas is fast approaching, I decided to highlight some fascinating Christmas-themed inventions and innovations. Some of these are already in the works and some are future projects, but either way they’re sure to make your holiday bright!

[SlideDeck2 id=30195 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Technology Innovations: Christmas Edition appeared first on Law Street.

I am wearing all black as I write this because it might as well be a funeral.

Sadly, Aereo is dead. The startup–which I had once believed to be a potential comeback kid has reached the end of its long and arduous battle; however, in a desperate attempt to retain hope, I am consoled by the revolutionary impact the small company seems to have made on the television industry. Aereo, a service provider that utilized small antennas to transmit broadcast signals to individual subscribers, filed for bankruptcy protection last week. Founder and CEO Chet Kanojia wrote in a letter to consumers:

We have traveled a long and challenging road. We stayed true to our mission and we believe that we have played a significant part in pushing the conversation forward, helping force positive change in the industry for consumers.

Despite valiant efforts, Aereo just could not overcome the legal and regulatory opposition that came after the Supreme Court decided Aereo’s business model was illegally violating copyright.

Shortly after the decision was released, Aereofiled for a cable license necessary for continued operation; however, the “Plan B” approach did not prove to be lucrative as the recent bankruptcy decision is Aereo’s best hope for maximizing its remaining value. With the filing for Chapter 11 reorganization proceedings, Aereo can put its legal woes behind it and sell any remaining assets that exist in the company. Lawton Bloom of Argus was appointed to serve as Chief Restructuring Officer.

William Baldiga, Aereo’s lawyer, announced that an auction of assets should occur on February 17, 2015, pending an approval hearing. “The company is now highly focused on devoting all its energy and limited resources to a transaction that will produce the highest and best return for our creditors and shareholders.”

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean Lane granted various requests submitted by Aereo to allow what is left of the company to remain active during the liquidation period. Aereo has fired 75 of its 88 employees and greatly decreased remaining employee pay. Kanojia’s salary was cut in half.

While Aereo barely gained footing before its huge legal battle, the service forced major broadcasters to play offense instead of defense, recognizing a definitive hole in the cable market. Cord-cutters need programming too and Aereo may be the catalyst for a new business trend. Current broadcsting companies have already begun recognizing the internet television demand. CBS recently announced CBS All Access, a streaming service available by subscription for a $5.99 monthly fee. HBO also recently announced a streaming service independent of a cable subscription.

Although only existing content companies are dominating internet television by way of new services, it’s only a matter of time before new startups, supported by cloud technology, appear. The FCC is bracing itself for such an occurance. Last month, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed a new rule that would allow internet television providers to license programming in an identical way to current cable and satellite companies. In an official FCC Blog post, Wheeler wrote:

Aereo recently visited the Commission to make exactly this point – that updating the definition of an MVPD [multichannel video programming distributor] will provide consumers with new choices. And perhaps consumers will not be forced to pay for channels they never watch.

So, although we are in a state of bereavement, heartbroken to see Aereo go, it will forever be the internet TV martyr that paved the way for the future of subscription streaming services.

Thank you, Aereo, for such innovation. You will be missed.

The post Aereo: The Martyr Files for Bankruptcy appeared first on Law Street.

The trend among law schools in recent years has been to move toward  lower tuition and shorter programs. The driving force in all of this? Significantly fewer people are sitting for the LSAT each year. According to recent statistics, there are fewer people sitting for the LSAT today than there were in 1987. This year, just 105,532 LSAT tests were administered. This is nine percent less than the 115,988 that were administered in 1987, which is fascinating given the increased focus on higher education these days.

This trend has been getting worse in the last four years. Since 2010, the number of students taking the LSAT each year has dropped a total of 38.5 percent. This is the worst decline that the legal field has seen in recent memory.

So, why is this the case? One possibility is that students no longer see law school as a guaranteed ticket to a six-figure salary. Jobs in the legal field have become increasingly competitive, so it’s likely that many worry that they will not be able to get a job when they graduate. Or, even if they think there is a good chance that they will get a job, they might not want to pile up hundreds-of-thousands of dollars of debt trying to get there.

All of these factors have led to decreased 1L enrollment, which is a result of the drop in the number of LSAT takers. According to the American Bar Association, 1L enrollment rates have declined by 13.5 percent since 2010.

The industry is now referring to this change as the “legal technology revolution.” This is because legal technology companies are changing the legal services landscape, making it more streamlined and efficient. In addition, many firms are expediting the transition to flat-fee legal services. With more efficient practice, less manpower is needed. This means that firms no longer have a need to hire new law graduates like they used to.

It is clear that law school is not as popular an option as it used to be, with declining enrollment every year. I thought it would be interesting to see if some of the other major fields, like business and medicine, were experiencing a similar fate. Curiously enough, I found that the number of people taking the GRE ever year, which is the admissions test for most graduate schools in the United States, has drastically increased over the last several years. According to the Educational Testing Service, there has been a 38% increase in the number of people taking the GRE in the 2012-2013 testing year. This increase is most likely a result of many of the top business schools now accepting the GRE as part of the application as opposed to only the GMAT.

Not only is the number of people taking the GRE increasing significantly, but the number of people taking the MCAT and applying to medical school is increasing as well. Within the last decade, the number of applicants has increased from about 33,600 a year to almost 45,000 last year. However, the number of available spots in medical school has not gone up, meaning that the percentage of applicants who actually matriculate has actually gone down. However, that does not seem to be stopping anyone from sitting for the MCAT and applying to medical school.

So what makes law school so different from other types of grad programs? Has it lost its appeal? It’s not as though this “technology revolution” is only happening in the legal field. In medicine, with the creations of things such as new testing machinery and robotic surgery, has become increasingly reliant on technology as opposed to manpower. In a similar vein, businesses now have the ability to do most of their work and business management online.

Perhaps it’s the fact that employment is no longer secure. Perhaps it’s the almost guaranteed debt that comes along with it.  Perhaps it’s because there are now hundreds of people on the internet saying that law school is a bad idea. In reality, it’s likely a combination of all of these factors. But, no one can really say for sure. Hopefully this major drop in applicants will be enough to cause law schools to lower their tuitions and provide more scholarships. We’ve already seen many schools, such as Elon Law and Wayne State Law, doing so. It is likely that if this trend of decreasing applicants continues, many more school will follow in their footsteps.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Shane S via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Applicants at Record Low appeared first on Law Street.

Students have always loved snow days as an excuse to play in the snow and forget about their schoolwork, if only for a day. However, snow days are a logistical headache for the administration and teachers who already have a difficult time cramming 2,500 years of world history or all of the basic principles of chemistry into a school year. As a result, some education reformers are suggesting that we should have “virtual” school on snow days. Read on to learn about what exactly that means, and the debate on virtual school days.

What’s the logic behind virtual snow days?

Snow days disrupt the academic schedule at a critical time in the year when students are least distracted and are preparing to take any number of standardized tests that come in early Spring. Additionally, administrators have to decide whether to add days lost because of snow to the end of the year, which is expensive and adds days at a time when students are mentally checked out and ready for summer.

After this past winter, one of the coldest on record and with an immense amount of snowfall, school districts are looking for ways to cope with a large amount of snow days. On February 13 the Pascack Valley Regional High School in Hillsdale, New Jersey tried holding a virtual school day after schools were closed due to snowfall. All students in the district had been assigned a laptop to bring home at the beginning of the year, and while remaining at home, teachers and students engaged in discussion, completed assignments, and continued progress on coursework. Students even had their physical education class, in which they were instructed to measure their heartbeat before and after going outside to shovel snow for 15 minutes. Though innovative, the New Jersey Board of Education has yet to decide whether they will accept this “virtual” day as an official school day.

While advocates hail this experiment as a success that will usher in a new era of productive snow days, opponents argue that technological barriers and a myriad of other problems prevent this idea from becoming a widely recognized solution.

What’s the argument for virtual snow days?

Advocates see virtual school days as a progressive way to prevent academic disruption and to provide students with as much education as possible prior to the standardized tests that have become so important in the era of “No Child Left Behind.” Standardized tests are often scheduled for February, March, or April regardless of how many snow days a school has had, and days added on in June do not benefit students on these tests that end up determining school funding and grade progression. It would be beneficial to have students continue to progress on coursework, as it not only takes away time from standardized test preparation but is disruptive to a teacher’s academic schedule to have to push back lessons, reviews, and test days.

It is also costly for school districts, which often have an already-tight budget, to keep school open at the end of the year, which involves extending building costs and staff salaries, while also disrupting the schedules of families that may have scheduled a vacation or have signed their children up for day camp during the regularly scheduled summer vacation. Virtual school days would eliminate these logistical problems and provide students with education during the time of year when they are most focused, and not daydreaming of being outdoors.

Advocates point to the success of online college courses and the growing number of individuals who work remotely from home via their computers as an indicator that this system could be adapted for use at the grade-school level. Additionally, advocates argue that virtual school could be adapted for such cases as when students are recovering from an illness but not quite well enough to return to school, which could prevent sick students from falling behind their peers.

What are the arguments against virtual snow days?

Despite being a useful method for keeping school on track and preventing disruption in academics, there are several logistical problems that would make virtual school days difficult to implement. First, snowfall often brings about power outages due to falling tree branches or car accidents, and without power a virtual school day cannot happen. Also, the technology required is not accessible to all school districts or all families that have school-aged children. While more affluent districts may be able to provide laptops for their students, most districts such as those in inner-city neighborhoods do not have the resources to make this happen. While beneficial, many opponents argue that the cost of providing each and every student with virtual school technology is simply not worth the benefits of productive snow days. In areas where all families have their own internet access, a situation in which a family has multiple children but only one computer, as is common, would create problems with virtual school. (Remember how difficult it was to share the TV with your siblings? Try sharing the resource you need in order to complete your schoolwork for the day.)

Another logistical problem faced by virtual school is the teachers who are parents themselves, and so have to watch their children on snow days. Many teacher-parents do not relish the thought of having to teach a full school day via computer while looking after their own children. Teachers of younger children also argue that virtual school would be difficult for children in elementary school, who often need more hands-on guidance with their schoolwork and find it more difficult to sit still and focus for long periods of time. Without the presence of a teacher in the same room as them, many feel that virtual school would not succeed in providing a quality educational day for younger students.

Many professionals are also against using e-learning technology to hold virtual school because many say teaching in this method requires a widely different skill set than those used for in-class teaching. Very few teachers have any type of training in using this technology or this method, and so opponents argue that while virtual school days would have students completing assignments on snow days, the quality of education the students would receive on these days would be dramatically different on days they are in the classroom.

Conclusion

With the state of American education where it is, every chance that we have to provide quality education to our children is valuable. That being said, creating make-shift learning opportunities from home may be more trouble than it would be worth. For those of us located in snow-prone climates, it will be a debate that many school districts will have to have for themselves in coming years.

Resources

Primary

Pascack Valley Regional High School School District: Virtual High School

Additional

NorthJersey.com: Make Snow Days Into Virtual School Days

NJ.com: Schools Offer ‘Virtual Classes’ to Keep Lessons on Track During Snow Storms

Accuweather.com: Could Virtual Classrooms Be a Solution For Snow Days?

Washington Post: Gasp! No More Snow Days?

Gizmodo: Terrible News: The Internet May Kill Snow Days

Middletown Press: Poor Elijah’s Almanack: Neither Snow Nor Blizzard Bags

NorthJersey.com: Snow Day’s Virtual Classroom: Are Lessons at Home the Next Logical Step?

CBS: NJ School District Tries to Get Around Snow Days With “Virtual School Days”

CNN: Students, Say Goodbye to Snow Days–and Say Hello to School at Home

Boston.com: Virtual School Days Replace Snow Days For Some Schools

NBC: New Jersey Students Spend Snow Day in Virtual School

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Snowmen or Textbooks: The Debate Over Virtual Snow Days appeared first on Law Street.

The Google X research lab announced this week that it expects its experimental Loon Balloons will be delivering internet service around the globe by next year. Using balloons to provide a wireless internet connection to rural areas across the country sounds like an extraordinary idea, but I thought it would remain science fiction.  I couldn’t fathom how the balloons could be controlled, including how they would maintain strong signals. Also, knowing that Google isn’t really an Internet Service Provider (ISP), I couldn’t imagine how this technology would be available to consumers. With regard to believing in the technology’s functionality and ability to be controlled, I will admit that my Googliness is nowhere near where it should be, and for that, I am ashamed. My public policy mind, however, still isn’t convinced that a practical solution for how to provide the service to consumers has been created.  First we must look at how the Loon Balloon works, and then we’ll explore the policy challenges it will face.

Project Loon’s pilot program has released solar powered balloons equipped with antennas and radios into the atmosphere. These balloons float roughly 65,000 feet into the sky. To better understand the balloons’ placement it should be noted that airplanes and weather occur on the troposphere, which is about 32,000 feet in the sky.  There’s no way to see the Loon Balloons from earth without a telescope. While the balloons are in the stratosphere there are winds, typically flowing from the west to the east, that allow the balloons to float. The balloons are then steered from the ground to follow the winds to new areas while always keeping balloons in every area necessary to continue providing a connection. The balloons are able to talk to neighboring balloons and can only receive signals from Project Loon antennas. This is intended to achieve high band width over long distances.

Additionally, the group-based antennas bounce off of the balloon network, which sends a signal down to the global internet. The pilot program has done so well that Astro Teller, head of the Google X Lab,  believes enough balloons will be launched in the southern hemisphere by next year to have a “semi-permanent ring of balloons.” The balloons are semi-permanent because they are eventually brought back down to earth to be recycled and reused. Although this project seems to ensure Internet access in rural areas, the balloons use the LTE protocol employed by cellular providers to equip users with wireless Internet service. This means that Google Loon has to team up with local ISPs to actually provide a connection to the public.  Here is where we could encounter a problem.

Many ISPs choose not to build infrastructure in rural areas due to the high cost and low probability that they’ll see a great enough return on their investment. This is one of the largest issues we face when considering how to provide Internet service in rural areas. If the balloon has to be supported by preexisting infrastructure then aren’t we back at square one? Google is not quite an ISP. The company is dabbling in this area with the invention and continued expansion of Google Fiber; however, this isn’t available in many areas. As an answer to the questions I’ve posed, Google expressed a plan to invest nearly $1 billion in low-Earth orbiting satellites as an extension of Project Loon. These satellites are able to beam internet access down to consumers.

It is unclear if the balloons will be used in conjunction with the satellites, or if the satellites will replace the Loon balloons all together. Either way, this project is interesting and continuing to broaden in scope. While we can see that the technology works, we’ll have to wait for more information on the success of its application.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Satellites, Fiber, Balloons Oh My! Google Loon Delivers Internet From Sky appeared first on Law Street.

Apple has done it again! No I’m not talking about their new ‘phablet’ {sidebar: how ridiculous is that word} as I’m sure everyone has heard plenty about it. However, the tech giant just announced new consumer protections from both government entities and the company itself, with its latest iOS 8 mobile operating system. Apple has created an encrypted operating system with passcodes inaccessible to the company. This means that if a government entity requests data concerning an iPhone user running the new operating system, Apple would be unable to provide the requested information. Although privacy concerns and requests for individual data by government entities is a huge point of contention for companies and individuals alike, we should expect the government to work slowly and incrementally to address these concerns. Although change will take considerable time, we should look at proposed legislation that will bring us a step closer to securing the privacy of our electronic communications with legislation like the Email Privacy Act.

Several tech companies, businesses, and civil liberties organizations have come together in support of the Email Privacy Act.  It’s rare that a policy is accepted by such a broad group, especially when those groups are normally on opposite sides of policy issues. It seems unlikely that any government would relinquish power over invasions of privacy, but the Email Privacy Act, which would reform the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), aims to do just that. The ECPA, passed in 1986, allowed law enforcement and government entities the freedom to request electronic communications without a warrant from third-party service providers after the communication was more than 180 days old. The Email Privacy Act aims to eliminate this 180-day rule and increase electronic communication confidentiality.

Before explaining the reforms of the Email Privacy Act, I first want to provide context for the ECPA. As I stated, the ECPA was passed in 1986, before the invention of Internet or email. Based on the language of the law, it’s apparent that legislators couldn’t discern the immense popularity electronic communications would eventually have, let alone envision the various social media platforms we would become accustomed to. After realizing how outdated the ECPA is, Congress has put forth efforts to reform the law with H.R.1852 and a similar Senate bill S.607. Each bill intends to eliminate the 180-day clause (Title 18, section 2703 of the U.S. Code). In addition to this change, the bills would set standards for requesting warrants, set deadlines for notifying subscribers whose electronic communications are requested, and set guidelines for delaying notification to subscribers.

If passed, the Email Privacy Act will stop remote computing services and electronic communication services from divulging the contents of any communications to a government entity without a warrant. Government entities may still submit requests to service providers for information, only after approval of warrant. If a warrant is granted to law enforcement, they must notify the subscriber in no more than 10 days that their communications have been surrendered. If a government entity other than law enforcement produces a warrant for an individual’s electronic communications, they must notify the subscriber in no more than three days. The only time a subscriber will not be informed of their surrendered communications is in response to an administrative subpoena.

Although notification of surrendered electronic communications must take place in all cases where a warrant is granted, both government entities and law enforcement may be granted a delay. In the case of law enforcement, they may be granted one or more delays of 180 days and for a government entity a delay of 90 days. There are five instances where a delay of notification to subscribers will be granted:

1. If notification may endanger the life or physical safety of the individual;
2. if flight from prosecution is a concern;
3. if intimidation of potential witnesses is a concern;
4. if destruction of or tampering with evidence is a concern; and,
5. if jeopardizing investigation or unduly delaying trial is a concern.

Even if there is a delay, subscribers must eventually be notified. Each subscriber who has their communications surrendered will be sent a copy of the warrant; notice concerning why and how the information was obtained; notice of delay; information on the court authorizing the delay; and provision for why the delay was granted.

Privacy concerns dealing with technology, and especially electronic communications, will continue until policies are reformed and in some instances, new policies created.  We can’t be discouraged by the inability of  a slow-moving government to address our concerns as quickly as we would like, but we can support new legislation, whenever presented, to address the concerns we have.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Ottox via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Apple is Now a Step Ahead of the Government to Protect Your Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

Need a lawyer? Well soon, we may have an app for that.

Currently there’s a project on crowdfunding website Indiegogo called Sidekik. The idea of sidekik is based on the fact that many Americans have found themselves in situations where they are confronted by the police, or other security force, and may not know their rights. In such a situation, the Sidekik app can be used for a few different things. It will be able to audio and video record the interactions that the user has with the police, and then upload it to a server where it can’t be deleted by just deleting the physical file off the phone. And it can connect the user, in real time, to an attorney who can help. Here’s a more thorough explanation of the idea:

The idea hasn’t really taken off on Indiegogo — so far, just over $11,000 has been raised of the $250,000 that Sidekik estimates it will need to get off the ground. But according to the founders, that initial money is enough to start developing the preliminary stages of the app.

I think the idea, at its core, is an interesting one. I do agree with the founders that most average Americans don’t necessarily know their rights, although if you’re curious, this guide on what to do if you’re pulled over by Lawstreeter Marisa Mostek is an excellent resource. Given the debates the nation has been having about police militarization and fairness, the Sidekik app could play an interesting part in ensuring that civil rights violations are avoided. I highly doubt that an app like this would have saved Michael Brown in Ferguson, but I could see it preventing some more minor civil rights issues.

There are some serious logistical issues though that need to be worked out when it comes to contacting attorneys. Presumably, you only have a few seconds between being pulled over and the cop walking up to your window. There’s no real time to tell your mobile attorney what’s going on, which will probably make it difficult for the attorney to be of real help.

Sidekik is also built on the fact that it will be in contact with attorneys within the jurisdiction where the user is interacting with the police, and be able to send the calls to those attorneys. It’s assumed that attorneys will pick up because of the desirability of client leads. I think that’s a great idea — during normal business hours. But what if you get pulled over at 2:00am? Will Sidekik be able to find a lawyer for you then? It’s certainly a tough guarantee to make, when it involves outsourcing to third parties.

Issues with the “contact an attorney wherever” logistics aside, the recording and uploading to a remote server is a decent idea. It will certainly allow you to chronicle your interactions with the police officer and ensure that the file can’t be deleted permanently if the phone is confiscated or destroyed. There are other apps that do the same thing, but maybe Sidekik will be able to make itself the go-to authority on secure recording.

I have no idea if this app will take off, but I think what it says about the state of American police is significantly more interesting than the app itself. We’re increasingly mistrustful of our police forces, and with more stories coming out every day, the paranoia is understandable. An app that’s based on the presumption that an officer is going to try to trick you or impede your civil rights is concerning. Whether or not Sidekik ends up being successful, it’s an interesting look into our national state of mind.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Weaver via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sidekik: An Attorney in Your Pocket? appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat quietly settled a lawsuit last week with Reggie Brown, a supposed original co-founder of the popular social media app. Brown claimed in his suit that he was the one who came up for the idea for the app in the first place, but was kicked out of group before it was released.

Snapchat said in a statement on September 9th that CEO Evan Spiegel and Chief Technology Officer Robert Murphy had resolved their dispute with Brown and confirmed his claims:

Reggie Brown originally came up with the idea of creating an application for sending disappearing picture messages while he was a student at Stanford University. He then collaborated with Spiegel and Murphy on the development of Snapchat during its early and most formative days.

The settlement marks the first public acknowledgement by Snapchat of its faults after a year-and-a-half legal battle with Brown. In February 2013, Brown claimed that he came up with the idea for an app that lets users send disappearing photos and videos to friends. He said he also came up with the idea for the app’s logo and its original name, “Picaboo.” He said he was ousted from the group by his fraternity brothers, Spiegel and Murphy, and that he rightfully owned one-third of the company. Snapchat denounced Brown’s claims several times and said that they were “utterly devoid of merit.” By settling last week, they changed their position. But Snapchat did keep the terms of the settlement confidential, making it impossible to know whether Brown got his one-third or something else.

Under normal circumstances, Sanpchat’s settlement might spark up a debate about intellectual property and ownership rights. But in this case, that didn’t happen for a couple of reasons. That September 9th date on which Snapchat announced the settlement might ring a bell to people who follow technology news. It was the day of Apple announced its new line of iPhones and the Apple Watch. Snapchat chose to publish its press release on that day at 1 p.m., the exact start time of Apple’s big event, which was the story of the day in the technology news sphere. The Snapchat story was almost completely overshadowed.

The other reason this settlement may not have sparked up a debate is that Snapchat, despite claiming to have 700 million photos and videos sent daily and being valued at an estimated $10 billion, currently does not earn any revenue. The company has already turned down offers from high profile tech giants–$3 billion from Facebook and $4 billion from Google. Without earning any revenue, Brown’s piece of the Snapchat pie currently wouldn’t earn him anything besides name recognition and the potential reward should the company decide to sell.

Snapchat’s dispute with Brown might sound familiar in the social media realm. In 2004, Facebook had a similar debacle–three Harvard University seniors sued CEO Mark Zuckerberg for using their idea for a social network. Facebook settled with them in 2008 for 1.2 million shares of Facebook, which were valued at $300 million during Facebook’s initial public offering.

While we don’t know what settling with Snapchat earned Brown, it does seem to be revealing an easy money-making scheme: introduce an idea for a product or service, wait for someone you know to make it successful, then sue.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Snapchat’s Settled Lawsuit: Another “Social Network” Story? appeared first on Law Street.

Introducing first, in one corner, weighing the equivalent of nine justices, hailing from Washington D.C., backed by broadcasters, the well educated, ever respected SUPREEEEME COURT!

In the other corner, less than one pound and the size of a dime, young and feisty, hailing from New York, the crowd favorite, the underdog, the AEREO ANTENNAAAA!

Well, folks… we all know how this fight ended. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, beat Aereo’s butt on the grounds of copyright infringement.

Nobody thought that Aereo, bruised and beaten from being on the ropes, would ever return to the ring. But have we found our comeback kid? It seems Aereo wants to brawl after broadcasters requested that a New York court order Aereo to cease business across the country. In new court papers, Aereo demands another chance. The Internet television provider insists it be given the necessary cable license for operation, legally allowing it to transmit broadcast TV shows.

“It would be illogical and fundamentally unfair to find that Aereo’s ‘Watch Now’ functionality is a ‘cable system’ …for the public performance analysis, but is not entitled to a compulsory license under the same,” Aereo asserts.

Odds are up in the air for this aggressive little company. A competitor of similar build, ivi TV was recently shot down after also requesting the same compulsory license in New York. So, why is the crowd still cheering for Aereo? Its individual attention to its fans! ivi TV’s transmissions were nationwide while Aereo only offered shows to those who subscribed to its service. This slight difference in technique can be just enough to bring victory to Aereo in this rematch with the judicial system.

Aereo enters this match insisting it’s a clean fighter, reminding the courts that it has “failed to show any imminent irreparable harm.” The company asks, “What better proof could there be that claimed harms are not imminent…than what actually happened when the complained-of actions went on for years?” Hope for this underdog comes from statements like that of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer who has said that there are no “behind the scenes technological differences” that discern Aereo from actual cable companies.

Meanwhile, more fighters are gearing up to enter the competition. In an attempt to fill the Aereo void, TiVo has come forward with its new ‘OTA’ device, and Roku has plans for smart televisions with Aereo-like technology already integrated into the devices.

Let’s not forget about the common theme in all of this, however: that damn cloud. Problems surrounding Cloud service have not specifically been addressed, even in the Supreme Court opinion of Aereo’s ruling. Not wanting to overreach, the Justices cited that they could not “answer more precisely how the Transmit Clause or other provisions of the Copyright Act will apply to technologies not before us… Questions involving cloud computing (remote storage) DVRs and other novel issues not before the Court… should await a case in which they are squarely presented.”

So, much like a cloud, the fate of this new technology is still up in the air. For now, all we can do is follow the IP scuffles that occur on the ground and in the courtroom.

—

Alexandra Badalamenti (@AlexBadalamenti) is a Jersey girl and soon-to-be graduate of Fordham University in Lincoln Center. She plans to enroll in law school next year to study Entertainment Law. On any given day, you’ll find her with big blonde hair, high heels, tall Nashville dreams, and holding a newspaper or venti latte.

Featured image courtesy of [Kristin Wall via Flickr]

The post Aereo: The Comeback Kid? appeared first on Law Street.

You’re being tracked.

Surprise!

Well maybe that’s not a surprise since  Americans are pretty cynical on issues of spying. It may surprise people, however, that the things they enjoy, such as digital news articles, videos, wearable technologies, and wireless appliances are all tracking their behavior. Depending on the technology used, data detailing frequency of maintenance, a person’s interests or vital signs, and metadata like location and time is also collected. This information analyzes everything from potential consumer needs, to uncovering relationships and patterns that weren’t previously known. The benefits of big data are enormous but we must consider how else this information could be used? At what point could this become a privacy concern?  Also, what steps are being taken to prevent possible manipulation?

Click here to find out everything you need to know about the big business of Big Data.

The increased use of technology to record defense capabilities, healthcare needs, government practices, as well as maintenance and safety needs are all positive ways big data has affected society. One positive effect translates into saving lives of premature babies after sensors record an uptick in body temperature, which could be a sign of an impending infection. Watching the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services prevent and stop more than $100 million worth of fraud after implementing the Fraud Prevention System, is another example of the advantages of Big Data. These two incredible examples of how Big Data is used as a  positive resource don’t even begin to highlight the many significant contributions it makes to society.

From a business perspective, companies can use the information from data profiling to identify similar or related products, social issues, and events of interest to consumers. How products and events are marketed to consumers is directly related to an advertiser’s ability to collect data and complete a practice known as behavioral targeting. An example of online use that constantly collects data is the social media platform, Facebook.  Most people are unaware that on top of the information provided by their profile, something as simple as posting a picture on Facebook provides more data and other related metadata, such as time and location, to the platform. This information as outlined in the company’s Data Use Policy can be used as stated below.

Sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners, customers and other .third parties that helps us (or them) deliver ads, understand online activity, and generally make Facebook better. For example, an advertiser may tell us information about you (like how you responded to an ad on Facebook or on another site) in order to measure the effectiveness of – and improve the quality of – ads.

I want to note the first line of the data use policy section provided above, which says, “sometimes we get data from our affiliates or our advertising partners.”  Now wait a second, how do their ad partners and affiliates have data that can be linked to specific people and why are they able to pass it on to others?  The data use policy explicitly tells us that those affiliates and partners have collected data through responses consumers have provided for other ads on other sites, which is then used to create a behaviorally targeted ad for Facebook and vice versa. In addition, cookies, web beacons, and IP addresses are all used to create an online profile able to frame our digital identities. At that point there’s no real need to have a name that identifies individuals. So when companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo and others declare that the information they share is passed anonymously, they’re technically telling the truth.

But these capabilities, most of which are not visible or available to the average consumer, also create an asymmetry of power between those who hold the data and those who intentionally or inadvertently supply it. – May 2014 Big Data Report

The outlined intent as stated by the terms above is to improve the Facebook experience by making sure Facebook knows what is important to its users. By identifying what’s important to each individual, Facebook can ensure that users see more of the same information they’re most likely to be interested in on either their newsfeeds or in advertisements. This sounds great right? Modifications made to the information seen on the newsfeed and in advertisements are based on:

1. Interests
2. Location
3. How often you use Facebook
4. Books you like and/or have read
5. Movies you like and/or have seen
6. TV shows you like and/or watch
7. Gender
8. Online purchasing habits
9. Other information provided by Facebook affiliates/partners/third parties
10. Topics you post about
11. Your friends list
12. Clubs/social groups/schools you’re associated with

WAIT ONE MINUTE!

Oh my goodness, they know you in a way that has just gotten uncomfortably scary right?

Not only can your timeline be manipulated, but so can your perception of what is going on around you. Facebook received criticism after admitting that for one week, it intentionally tried to make 155,000 of its users sad for no other reason than just to see if they could do it.  Another example can be seen in how conversations concerning the social upheaval in Ferguson, Missouri was somehow missing from many Facebook newsfeeds while Ice Bucket Challenges were commonly seen. People wanted to know how life on this social media outlet could seem so out of the loop. That was until techies realized that a Facebook algorithm used to filter out posts Facebook feels users wouldn’t be interested in, figured its users were much more interested in Ice Bucket Challenges than discussions on social inequities, policing, race relations, civil liberties and so forth.

For all we know, Facebook may have gotten it right.  After being bombarded by 24-hour news cycles and other  social media outlets like Twitter, which were jammed with Ferguson discussions, it may have been nice for users to escape to a place where Ferguson wasn’t the only thing discussed.

Make no mistake, Facebook is not the only outlet that uses, collects, and has the ability to manipulate Big Data. Beyond Facebook is the general use of the internet and digital technology, all of which can collect big data. What must be done now, is to determine the proper use for this information and identify ways to protect the privacy of users. Several government agencies, departments, and branches of government are interested in discussing these topics. This can be noted by the FTC’s call to identify how data is categorized, used, and the applicable laws to protect consumers. Additionally, organizations like the Open Internet Institute, Common Cause, Free Press, and Public Knowledge have submitted comments to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the importance of protecting telecommunications metadata.

With more people, governments, and organizations identifying concerns, changes can be made and applicable laws can be clarified to protect consumers and avoid impositions of privacy.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Big Data, Little Privacy appeared first on Law Street.

As a society, unfortunately, we have come to a point where we normalize violence. We no longer find it unusual when we hear about mass shootings at schools, we create extremely violent video games that allow us to kill our opponents in a variety of ways, and we videotape fights and post them online. But now, now we’ve taken it one step too far. A developer who uses the moniker PlayFTW uploaded a Bomb Gaza game where users can drop bombs on draped figures who are supposed to represent the Palestinian organization Hamas, while trying to avoid killing civilians. The game was downloaded around 1,000 times before it was pulled by Google’s app store according to Fox.

Both Palestinians and Israelis have been prominent in sharing their views on the matter. Since the conflict started over a month ago there have been numerous online mementos; from the simple hashtag of #freepalestine, to the statuses saying “I stand with Gaza.” Our generation makes it a point to use technology to voice their opinions on matters, and I often find it commendable. But when people use said technology to glorify the ongoing violence occurring in Gaza, it is utterly shocking and despicable. It also raises red flags on what Google’s standards and policies are for their Play Store applications.

A Google spokesman said that the company doesn’t “comment on individual apps, but will remove apps that breach our guidelines,” which prohibit some speech, bullying, and violence. The app’s maturity setting was set to ‘low,’ which means that the game was deemed suitable for kids, according to the Guardian.

Google: I don’t know how you could allow a game like this to be put up.

PlayFTW: I don’t understand why you would create a game like this in the first place.

Android users: I don’t understand why you would download and play an insensitive game titled “Bomb Gaza.”

I’m just full of confusion at the moment.

What is going on in Gaza is horrendous. So far, more than 1,800 Palestinians have died, and many of those are children. Children who don’t have any say in the matter. Children who hardly have any idea what the conflict is about. Children who simply radiate innocence. I just don’t understand. I don’t understand how someone could take something so serious and turn it into a game.

Now I concede, I have played the earlier Call of Duty games that were set during World War II, but “Bomb Gaza” is so much different.  You cannot play as the German army in the Call of Duty games; you cannot imprison Jews and gas people as the Nazis did; and you cannot strip people of their dignity. You simply cannot recreate the emotions felt during WW2, because they are still too raw. With “Bomb Gaza” you’re supposed to aim for the ‘terrorists’ but can easily hit a civilian, and although it’s only a game, it still hits a deep, deep nerve.

I have no ‘true’ connection with this conflict. I am not Palestinian, and I am not Israeli; but I am a human. And it saddens me every time I hear about a village being taken out. It saddens me when I see a picture of a father holding the remains of his son. It saddens me when innocent people are caught in the crossfire of a conflict they never asked for. And it saddens me when an app is developed to perpetuate the conflict, to add fuel to the fire, to glorify and normalize the bombings of Gaza, and to do it now at the height of the conflict.

Hate perpetuates hate, violence perpetuates violence. But you know what? Peace perpetuates peace, and love perpetuates love and instead of using our technology to provoke the situation, why don’t we use it to try and solve this issue peacefully?

Mic Drop

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Plantronicsgermany via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Really Messed Up With Bomb Gaza Game appeared first on Law Street.

Ever wonder how your city compares to the rest of the world? Well lucky for you there’s a scientific system that will show how your city measures across the globe. The most up-to-date system of international quota and best way to compare cities is the ISO 37120, which works to measure the quality of food, environment, health care, business, government standards, and overall quality of life through a measurement of carefully calculated standards. Here is everything you need to know about ISO 37120, the world’s largest developer of voluntary international standards.

What is ISO?

History of ISO

In 1946, 25 countries came together to devise a tool that could track, benchmark, and improve city services and living conditions. Their goal was to improve the quality of cities by “[creating] strategic tools that reduce costs by minimizing waste and errors, and increasing productivity…help companies to access new markets, level the playing field for developing countries and facilitate free and fair global trade.” After a year of collaboration, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) officially emerged and began recruiting more countries to participate in its global effort.

Click here to read the ISO’s full story.

How does ISO work?

The ISO is a non-governmental organization that is financed through the sale of electronic standards to members. It works to create a system of measurements geared toward a city’s performance in different areas of operation and production. ISO conducts an analysis of economics, business, and other fundamental principles of a functional municipality, then creates “requirements, specifications, guidelines, or characteristics, that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are fit for their purpose.” ISO then devises several implementation methods for almost guaranteed success and prosperity in a  city’s various industries, such as business, government, food, environment, and energy.

The ISO system is uniform and consistent in its measurements in order to conduct a fair analysis of each city’s quality, and can accurately enact or recommend a specific policy for areas in which certain cities may lack. The system adheres to a specific assessment to assure that the test remains completely objective and results in an accurate measurement. There are six statutes that the ISO agrees to maintain at an international level: transparency; openness; impartiality and consensus; relevance and effectiveness; coherence; and country interests. This allows for a scientific and fair system of evaluation.

Click here to read the ISO in Brief.

Click here to see a visual representation of ISO.

Members of ISO

ISO is funded through the sale of subscriptions to members worldwide. There are 163 member countries, each with one representative who attends conferences and meetings to discuss standards and strategies for implementation. Member countries are separate from their measured cites in that a member country does not designate each city to participate. Cities make the decision to participate independently of their federal governments, and often include the feedback of businesses and local governments, and they are assessed individually, separate from their countries. The role of the country members is to decipher the needs of their cities and create policy to improve overall quality of life.

Benefits of the ISO System 

Cities that participate in ISO 37120 will benefit in the following ways:

• More effective governance and delivery of services
• International benchmarks and targets
• Local benchmarking and planning
• Informed decision making for policy makers and city managers
• Learning across cities
• Leverage for funding and recognition in international entities
• Leverage for funding by cities with senior levels of government
• Framework for sustainability planning
• Transparency and open data for investment attractiveness
• Comparable data for city decision making, insight and global benchmarking

The benefits of being a part of the ISO standard are clear in that cities receive expert advice, regulations, and guidelines; productivity will inevitably increase, and the overall quality of life improves for the city’s residents. Business, government, and society can all prosper when put up against international standards and given a sense of stability and regularity.

Is this system a requirement for cities?

Cities are not legally required to register for ISO 37120, yet they may receive pressure from several different sources to do so. According to former World Bank official Dan Hoornweg, “It’s a potential game changer for world cities and everyone who works for cities, for journalists evaluating city performance, for the World Bank in determining grants and more.” With cities openly sharing information on services, this will create more competition and encourage cities to raise the bar on the services that they provide. Cities want to keep up with this international rat race.

 ISO Technology and Graphic Standards

One way that ISO profits and upholds its mission is by selling its electronically documented standards to cities. A catalog of 19,500 international standards are available for purchase on the ISO website.

ISO is largely based in an online platform. This allows countries to collaborate internationally and to ease technical communications. This focus on technological development also made ISO services more readily available to the less developed countries. In 2013, El Salvador, Uganda, and Rwanda all became members of the ISO online community.  Also in 2013, ISO created online stores; now 19 countries can sell ISO products (graphic decals, standards, and country codes).

Cities that participate in the ISO system have the option to buy graphic decals in virtual or physical form to illustrate how to operate a product or signify its validity based on the ISO system’s standard and seal of approval.

How does ISO 37120 benefit developing countries?

Using the ISO 37120 can have a positive impact on developing nations. This standard gives those countries a model of what standards to strive for. According to ISO: Action Plan for Developing Countries, there are several areas that the ISO would like to work on, including: agriculture, construction, mechanical engineering, manufacturing, distribution, transport, medical devices, information and communication technologies, the environment, energy, quality management, conformity assessment, and services. Working on  issues in developing nations creates a global community in which they receive collaborative support to create a more prosperous and functional community.

One way that ISO works to  encourage development in third world countries is to hold a contest every two years. The German Institute for Standardization, a member of ISO, is  hosting the contest this year for young professionals in developing countries. This year the theme is: ‘Sustainable energy future: How can standards help meet the challenge?’ The winner will receive a trip with paid expenses to the German Institute for Standardization, where they will receive professional training on business and management. Efforts such as this target the youth in less-developed nations, and stimulate thoughts and instills drive in the future of these nations.

Click here to read the ISO Action Plan for Developing Countries

Standards of Evaluation

Click here to see a full list of ISO 37120 indicators.

Health

A city’s overall quality of health is generally measured by the following indicators: A citizen’s average life expectancy; the mortality rate of children who are under the age of five years old; the number of doctors and hospital beds per 100,000 population; the number of people who live in poor conditions or slums (this is also a measure for economic standing ); and the amount of solid waste, both produced and recycled.

• Emergency services and fatalities: How a city responds to emergencies also factors into a city’s quality. The number of firefighters, fire-related deaths, and deaths from natural disasters per every 100,000 population measures the quality of emergency response systems and effectiveness for unpredictable  occurrences. The ISO also measures the number of police per 100,000 people, as well as the number of homicides.
• Issues at the forefront in Health: ISO has made some helpful advancements in health within the past year. In cancer research, an advancement in digital technology was made to help in identifying breast cancer. A mammogram is an x-ray of the breasts that detects abnormal or cancerous cells. The ISO system has successfully made it possible for digital images to be transmitted clearly from facility to facility. Kevin O’Donnell, a technological expert at ISO, said: “Thanks to the standard, images can be read on any equipment. The DICOM format allows these images to be uploaded and reviewed wherever they are taken.  Being able to compare current images to prior images to get a sense of changes and progression, or lack thereof, is vital for radiologists and oncologists.”

Click here to view more ISO issues ISO.

Improving Standards

To improve health standards ISO mainly focuses on upgrading the level of care by implementing new technologies and developing a more efficient and effective system in handling general health and medical crises.

Food Standards

The ISO food standards are constantly being improved. Food regulations include transportation, storage, and production. Academic, research, government, and food industry organizations all participate in this quest to meet and keep health requirements up-to-date.

There are specific sets of standards that apply to organizations, caterers, farmers, and manufacturers. ISO would like to certify as many food institutions as possible in order to eliminate health hazards in the food industry, such as salmonella and listeria.

ISO in the Alcohol Industry

An example of the food trade regulating itself would be the alcohol industry. A large beer company, headquartered in St. Petersburg, Russia uses ISO to improve its business and increase revenue. By adhering to strict principles and standards of making the alcohol, companies can become more productive and prosperous in their sales and relationships with consumers. ISO standards including “procurement, production, distribution, and after sales service” contributed to the rebirth of this once failing company.

To view how this beer company saved itself from bankruptcy view the video below.

Environment

The benefits of having the environment monitored and regulated include a reduction in the cost of waste management services and products, lower distribution prices, and the improvement of a city’s image.
The general quality of  the environment is measured by two basic standards:

1. Fine particulate and particulate matter concentration and the amount of green house emissions. The amount of open green area is also a feature of measurement in the ISO 37120 system.
2. By monitoring these environmental factors, ISO and cities can work to cut down on air pollution and environmental damage through the increase in energy efficiency and the promotion and development of renewable energy technologies.

Energy

One goal of ISO 37120 is to better conserve energy. This requires a city to first measure and become aware of  its expenditure and the source. Then a feature of ISO, ISO 50001, works to create an energy management system to more efficiently use energy.

To judge the standard of energy in each city ISO uses a few mandatory standards:

• The amount of residential electrical usage
• The percentage of the population that uses an electrical service
• The amount of energy that public venues consume per year
• The amount of energy that is derived from alternative or renewable resources

Transportation

ISO 37120 measures both public and private transportation, as well as the passengers of personal automobiles per the standard 100,000 measurement. These statistics assist ISO in measuring environmental factors in which transportation contributes to the output of environmentally detrimental fumes.

ISO also adheres to a system in which it measures the safety, test methods, engineering, and performance in vehicles.

Water (Sanitation and Waste)

ISO 37120 measures the amount and level of treatment that the city’s water will go through before consumption. It also measures the improvement of sanitary services, the amount of people with potable water service, and the amount of water that is consumed.

One way that ISO is working to make water management efficient is by assessing the “water footprint,” and the cycles and impacts of water usage in cities. This initiative examines a specific environmental factor that works to maximize the usage of a city’s resources and minimize its negative effects on the environment.

ISO is constantly working on ways to improve environmental protection plans, especially with the growing fear of global warming. Right now, ISO is working to “go green,” by trying to cut down on pollution and carbon emissions produced by cities.

Business and Government

Economy

A standard of evaluation for cities participating in the ISO will be judged based on three standards of monetary importance: The city’s unemployment rate, the number of people living in poverty, and the value of the properties. Also, the financial worth of the city is measured by the percentage of debt to the overall revenue.

Government

Two main factors are used to measure the quality of a municipality’s government: The number of eligible voters in the last election, and the number of women who are elected at the city level.

These variables work to measure the level of participation of the city in local legislation. This is especially important to developing countries where governmental participation in vital to the expansion and evolution of an under-developed country.

Education

Education standards are judged by the following criteria: “Primary education student/teacher ratio, percentage of female school-aged population enrolled in school, percentage of students completing primary education, [and] percentage of students completing secondary education.” Once again this statistic is particularly relevant in developing countries, in that education is a primary tool which advances a community intellectually and economically.

Technology

ISO 37120 also measures the number of internet and cell phone connections per the standard 100,000 persons. This measures how technologically advanced a city is, and the level of industrialization they have reached in comparison to the rest of the world.

Issues at the Forefront in Business

An issue that has infected not only consumers but also governments and businesses is the issue of counterfeit drugs and products in circulation. According to the ISO, “Counterfeit products exist in virtually every area – food, drinks, clothes, shoes, pharmaceuticals, electronics, auto parts, toys, currency, tickets for transport systems and concerts, alcohol, cigarettes, toiletries, building materials and much, much more.” When consumers buy counterfeit products they are keeping money from the government and increasing taxes for taxpayers. Also, “financial turmoil for businesses such as low turnover, stolen know-how, lost jobs, wrongful lawsuits caused by counterfeited products and price hikes.”

Ultimately this underground market is devastating the economy. How will ISO combat this detrimental circulation of illegal goods? First off, the organization plans to enact legislation that would enforce regulations across industries to eliminate the illegitimate vendors that are illegally benefiting from a market which that have no rights to. Also, pre-market and market surveillance can help to identify illegal goods before or after they are available to the public; then further action to remove the product and possible legal action would be taken to discourage future frauds. Taking action on an international level is also part of the ISO plan.

City Growth and ISO

A megacity is defined as a growing city with a population of 10 million or more people. Check out this global breakdown of the world’s megacities.

Conclusion

As cities consistently grow throughout the world, they also run into more issues with the massive influx of people. Although the economy can reap benefits, pollution, politics, and  environment become targets of mankind, and the overall quality of life begins to suffer. With the future of developing cities at stake, the ISO can step in to benchmark and ultimately regulate the standards of living on an international scale. The ISO works to oversee and create a plan to manage cities that experience development at a quick and potentially unmanageable rate.

 Resources

Primary

ISO: About

ISO: 10 Good Things for SMEs

ISO: ISO Standards in Action

ISO: We are ISO. 

Additional

Citiscope: Here are the 46 performance measures the world’s cities will be judged by 

GovTech: Finally, Clear Performance Data for Comparing the World’s Cities

University of Toronto: Global Cities Gather in Toronto for Summit and to Launch the World Council on City Data 

Smart Cities: Stakeholder Platform 

CNBC: Megacities’ Explosive Growth Poses Epic Challenges

Global City Indicators Facility: Pilot Cities

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Does Your City Measure Up Across the Globe? appeared first on Law Street.

Exciting news is coming from the Apple camp. In an attempt to move into the business enterprise market,  Apple has announced it will team up with International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) to create business apps for iPads and iPhones. It’s no secret that Microsoft has cornered the enterprise market for decades, representing as much as 92 percent of it; however, with Microsoft’s successful efforts to transform its devices and services with the release of the Surface RT and Surface Pro tablets, we shouldn’t be surprised that Apple wants to move in on the enterprise turf. As an owner of a Surface Pro and an iPhone, all I can say is that I’m excited to see the innovation that comes out of this new competition.

The folks at Microsoft have to be a little nervous. Apple has a huge following of dedicated consumers who are all too eager to get their hands on the next new device and software developed by the tech giant. Apple’s genius really is found in its ability to cultivate repeat customers due to proprietary practices. By allowing all Apple products to connect with each other, in addition to their exclusivity as it concerns software, its following grows and customer retention remains high.  Apple is essentially the Pringles of tech devices. You don’t stop after buying one, you get them all and have them communicate with each other. This level of integration is crucial. If the Apple/IBM partnership fairs well in the development of business software, there’s nothing stopping companies from also purchasing Apple computers to have the complete trifecta of phone, tablet, and computer integration. If Apple users can combine their business and personal lives through the exclusive use of Apple devices, what will happen to Microsoft?

Unfortunately, I’m not an oracle and therefore can’t predict how this will affect Microsoft, but I do know that the incorporation of tablets in the workplace will continue to increase over the next three years. I also know that the iPad currently makes up 91 percent of all tablet activations in the enterprise market.  An August 2013 report conducted by Forrestor Research found that by 2017 nearly one in five tablets will be purchased directly by companies. Some key reasons for the trend are better work functionality, quick accessibility to information, and the device’s use for business presentations. These conveniences are only amplified by the ability to have phones integrated with tablets. Many companies are already seeing the value of tablets in the workplace and in some cases implementing BYOD (bring your own device); however, the use of personal devices does create security concerns.

Now this is where the magic happens for Apple: companies are already promoting the use of tablets. In addition, having integrated tablet and mobile devices allows for constant connection and the ability to manage multi-platforms of integrated business data.  Apple already has the device and integrated system established.  All it needs is the security, big data, and analytics capabilities that businesses want, which is why its partnership with IBM is important.  According to Apple, IBM has the world’s deepest portfolio in Big Data and Analytics. Hence the beautiful marriage of IBM and Apple. This pairing will produce more than 100 industry-specific business solutions. High customer retention, an integrated system for all Apple devices, a partnership with the world’s leading big data and analytics corporation. A market for tablets in the workplace could mean trouble for Microsoft’s enterprise market.

Good luck to all involved, and let the innovation commence.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Leon Lee via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tablets in the Workplace: Should Microsoft be Afraid of Apple? appeared first on Law Street.

When New Orleans Superintendent of Police Ronal Serpas took office four years ago, he was faced with high crime rates, a depressingly low department approval rate, and a long history of police corruption and brutality. While lowering crime rates and rebuilding trust take time, his solution to corruption allegations and brutality has been relatively simple — require patrol officers to wear body cameras.

The New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) has been through several scandals, but none as severe as the Danziger Bridge incident, in which police officers shot, killed, and maimed innocent, unarmed citizens then tried to cover it up. The incident took place just six days after Hurricane Katrina and took the lives of a mentally impaired man as well as a 19 year old. It also spurred a Department of Justice investigation that resulted in a long-awaited consent decree, which imposed sweeping reforms on the NOPD.

One product of the consent decree is the requirement of patrol officers to wear body cameras in an effort to regain trust and ensure transparency and accountability in the future. Hailing this as the next step in American policing, Serpas has high hopes that the cameras will be well worth the $1.45 million investment. He believes that they are the best way to eliminate the “he-said-she-said” problem once and for all.

The 420 cameras purchased by the NOPD are required to be used by patrol officers whenever they are attending a “business-related event,” including traffic stops and responding to calls. The officers are encouraged to consult their videos before preparing a report and must attend a three-hour training session to learn how to use the devices.

The New Orleans Police Department is not alone in its use of body cameras; more and more police departments across the nation are beginning to require officers to wear cameras on duty. Police Foundation Executive Fellow Chief Tony Farrar recently completed a year-long study evaluating the effect that body cameras have on police use-of-force. He found the cameras to be associated with “dramatic reductions in use-of-force and complaints against officers.”

These cameras are especially appealing to troubled police departments such as the NOPD, currently facing federal scrutiny. Although Superintendent Serpas claims the cameras are a “win-win” for all parties involved due to the creation of an irrefutable record of what happened, there is the fear that the videos may just be for the benefit for the police.

Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, cautions against the practice of letting officers watch their own videos before writing reports. He argues that if an officer is planning to lie, the videos serve as a “good guide” to what he can get away with.

Another issue is the matter of who gets to view the videos and whether or not they are a matter of public record. While Serpas told NPR that he will hire whatever additional staff is necessary to handle public requests for the videos, he concedes that public record laws have “exceptions to releasing information, and there are directions about which information to release.”

A police department monopoly of the videos does little to curb the problem of false or misleading reports. If the public does not have access to the videos then, short of legal action, they still have little more than blind faith to ensure that officers are being truthful when they state that something was or was not recorded on the tapes.

Conspiracy theories aside, the NOPD seems to genuinely want the public to be aware of the cameras, going as far as having officers demonstrate the technology to random citizens. The point behind installing the cameras is to foster public trust, something that the department can only do by proving to the community that they have turned a new leaf.

The cameras fit over the officers’ ears and therefore allow the viewer to see everything that the police officer sees. This is naturally meant to inspire trust by deterring officers from filing false reports – what is the point of lying if you know that what you have done is caught on film? – but ironically enough it seems that the cameras may be doing more to curb the behavior of the people being filmed rather than the officers themselves.

For example, Lt. Travis St. Pierre told NPR that “they always have this one individual that they would go on calls and service for that likes to be disruptive, curse at the police, fight with the police, and when they got out and turned the camera on and informed her she was being recorded, she immediately said, ‘Ah. OK,’ and was not a problem at all. We’re seeing a lot of that kind of stuff.”

More polite citizens aren’t necessarily a bad thing, but stifling complaints or disagreements is not necessarily good either. As the NOPD’s bleak track record has shown, the police are not always right and they do not always act with citizens’ best interests in mind. Being able to freely voice your opinions and complaints — no matter how disruptive they may be — is just as important as officers not falsifying reports. As the use of cameras continues to expand in New Orleans and several other jurisdictions, it will be interesting to see how effective it is, and who actually benefits from the tactic.

—

Nicole Roberts (@NicoleR5901) a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Thomas Hawk via Flickr]

Nicole Roberts

Nicole Roberts a student at American University majoring in Justice, Law, and Society with a minor in Mandarin Chinese. She has a strong interest in law and policymaking, and is active in homeless rights advocacy as well as several other social justice movements. Contact Nicole at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Orleans Police Attempt to Regain Public Trust by Wearing Patrol Cameras appeared first on Law Street.

Between laptops, cellphones, tablets, and iPads, students have more access to technology than ever before, and this comes with numerous benefits — but it also comes with a lot of responsibility. Apps that allow anonymous users, such as the social networking app Yik Yak, are accused of creating more harm than good. Do these anonymous apps make cyberbullying easier?

What is Yik Yak?

Yik Yak was founded by two Kappa Alpha fraternity brothers, Brooks Buffington and Tyler Droll, at Furman University. The app was first released November 7, 2013. Yik Yak allows users to anonymously post to a community bulletin board, much like an anonymous college Twitter feed. Posts are text only and limited to 200 characters. The catch is that posts can only be read by those within a 1.5-mile radius of the person who posted. Users can reply to posts and then vote — an upvote expresses approval and a downvote conveys the opposite. Eventually posts with enough downvotes will disappear from the feed altogether.

Yik Yak is the first app to allow hyperlocal communication while retaining user privacy. The app claims the only information they will ever require is a user’s location. Yik Yak is used for telling jokes, sharing events, providing commentary, and relaying funny sightings. It initially gained popularity on Southern campuses and has spread by word of mouth to 250 campuses nationwide. According to Business Insider, the app is used by nearly 80 percent of the student body at smaller schools. The founders’ goal is to create a local community that keeps everyone, rather than just a select few, informed. In an interview with the Boston Globe, Droll said:

“We saw on our college campus that only a few people really had a voice. They’re the people with big Twitter accounts, maybe student athletes, who had thousands of followers. My thought was why can’t everyone have this power?”

While founders liken it to a campus bulletin board, critics contend that the app is more like a bathroom stall door where vicious rumors are spread. On June 30, 2014, Yik Yak got a huge boost in the form of a $10 million investment from DCM, Azure Capital Partners, and others. The funding will be used to hire new employees, improve the app on Android and iOS, and increase marketing efforts. Other investors have been wary due to concerns that the app does more harm than good.

So what’s the problem with Yik Yak?

The majority of messages on the site are positive; however, the ones that are hurtful can be horrific. Cruel comments spread quickly, even if the post is eventually removed. While the app was intended for college students, it has naturally spread to younger teens who use it to bully and spread rumors. Yik Yak does not require any potentially identifying information to sign up, including any pseudonym or avatar, and there is no way for users to see a thread of someone’s past yaks. Many users simply think what they post on the app is untraceable. Other similar apps, such as “Whisper” and “Secret” share anonymous posts with other users and have the potential for abuse. However, Yik Yak has more downloads than both of these apps combined and typically hits schools like a hurricane — even after one day of popularity, the app’s damage is done.

Yik Yak posts community guidelines, but the nature of the site makes it difficult to consistently and immediately enforce these rules. Following abuse of the app by younger teens, Yik Yak moved to ensure the app is only used by those 17 years and older. According to Yik Yak, users agree not to:

• “Transmit any pornographic, obscene, offensive, threatening, harassing, libelous, hate-oriented, harmful, defamatory, racist, illegal, or otherwise objectionable material or content;”
• “Transmit or encourage the transmission of unlawful, harassing, libelous, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature”

Ultimately, it is users who are left to police the app. Users can flag negative posts that they deem offensive. If two or more users flag a post, it is removed from the site. Alternately, users can send a picture of an offensive post to Yik Yak, and it will immediately be removed. Posts which contain names or phone numbers are removed. Yik Yak can terminate accounts of those who violate the terms and conditions, but not before the damage is done. Watch some of the controversy surrounding the app below:

How has the app been abused?

Most abuse of the app has come from high school students, but college students are guilty too.

Rumors

New York Magazine chronicled the rapid spread of Yik Yak at Staples High School in Westport, Connecticut. Nasty comments forced many students to leave school in tears. No one was safe from the anonymous racist, homophobic, sexist messages that spread through the school in hours.  A sampling of the tamer posts includes comments like the following: “The fact that O.P has diabetes makes me happy;” “Nobody is taking H. to prom because nobody has a forklift;” “S.D. + 10 years = trailer park;” and “J.N. is a fag.”

Criminal Activity

The disruption at Staples High School was not an isolated incident. Marblehead High School in Massachusetts was twice evacuated due to bomb threats posted on Yik Yak. Students in California and Alabama have already been charged for making terroristic threats via Yik Yak. Users think they are completely anonymous.; however, authorities can track the address of the user and obtain their cell phone number from Yik Yak when necessary. While criminal posts are investigated, the everyday, hurtful posts are not. Watch some of the issues with Yik Yak below:

Offensive Jokes

Most recently, the app has been used by Wall Street interns to bash Goldman Sachs. Some of the posts are funny and innocent, “Goldman interns wear sandals with socks” and “GS interns eat lunchables.” However, other posts are more offensive: “God hates fags and GS interns.”

What is being done to address cyberbullying on Yik Yak?

Bullies once used the playground. Now, cell phones can taunt from afar, and apps are the new breeding ground for bullying. Cyberbullying is defined as harassing or making fun of someone online or while using a cell phone or other electronic device. According to the Cyberbullying Research Center, roughly 25 percent of high school and middle school students report being cyberbullied at some point. Seventy percent of students report frequently seeing bullying online. Bullying can have extreme consequences, including low self-esteem, suicidal thoughts, anger, frustration, withdrawal, and antisocial behavior. And It does not end at high school — almost 20 percent of college students report being cyberbullied in their college careers. The disguise of anonymity on online apps makes it significantly easier for bullies to feel free to say anything they want without repercussions. Listen below to some of the bullying on Yik Yak at Boston College:

Yik Yak’s founders claim they did not expect the app to be so popular with younger users who are more likely to cyberbully. The pair do not believe high schoolers are psychologically ready for the app and have taken measures to limit use by younger teens. Technically, users must be 17 and over, but most teens ignore the restriction. School districts in Chicago faced significant problems with the app, leading Yik Yak to remove it from the Chicago area for a short time. Some Chicago school districts even sent letters home to parents about the growing problem.

Yik Yak now geo-fences high school and middle schools through a third party. The app uses GPS to detect when a user is inside a school building and will prevent anyone from posting from that location. Restricted service is in place at approximately 130,000 schools across the country.  While access may be prevented at school, students can still go home and post on Yik Yak.

What more can be done?

The anonymity of apps like Yik Yak make it extremely difficult for schools or anyone else to crack down on inappropriate use. Schools may be able to monitor social media accounts and discipline harmful behavior, but Yik Yak allows users to remain completely anonymous. When used responsibly, Yik Yak maintains that “anonymity is a beautiful thing.” There are no repercussions for mean posts, but vicious rumors spread faster than they can be taken down.

The App’s Responsibility

At some level, the app must take appropriate measures to ensure it is not being used in a harmful manner. Yik Yak declares it is not responsible for offensive or objectionable content. Further, Yik Yak relies on its users to monitor content. The app could take more responsibility by using a filter and automatically flagging certain offensive words that would require further approval from administrators. The Yik Yak site declares it reserves the right to monitor disputes and disable accounts. Critics contend that Yik Yak should have the obligation rather than right to fulfill those roles. Many also argue for greater repercussions for the app’s rule violators.

Role of Parents

It is also unreasonable to expect an app to constantly monitor user-generated content. Parental involvement is necessary to monitor minors’ access to technology. Parents should strive to set guidelines, implement controls, and be knowledgeable about the technology their children are using. It is nearly impossible to monitor all of a child’s technology and social media activity. Instead, experts argue parents should have honest conversations about expectations and responsible behavior even on anonymous apps. By the time a child is in college, there is little more a parent can do to try to prevent bullying. Watch what parents need to know below:

Conclusion

Ultimately an app like Yik Yak is only part of the problem. Dozens of apps like Whisper, Snapchat, Vine, ask.fm, and JuicyCampus have the potential for abuse and bullying. The elimination of Yik Yak would not stop cyberbullying altogether. Students must be educated about the effects of cyberbullying and make the decision to behave responsibly despite the lure of anonymity.

Resources

Primary

Yik Yak: App

Cyberbullying Research Center: Home

Sage: Cyberbullying in College

Additional

Business Insider: Yik Yak, a 7-Month-Old School Gossip App

Wall Street Journal: Yik Yak Raises $10 Million

New York Magazine: A Gossip App Brought My High School to a Halt

Venture Beat: Anonymous Messaging App Yik Yak Grabs $10M

Fox News: Psychiatrist’s View: Yik Yak is the Most Dangerous App I’ve Ever Seen

Huffington Post: Yik Yak Makers do the Right Thing

The Breeze JMU: Yik Yak is an Invasion of Privacy

Chicago Now: The Real Problems With Yik Yak

NY Daily News: Student Monitoring: Cyberbullying Leads LA-area School District to Spy

Business Insider: Here’s What You Need to Know About Yik Yak

ACLU: Social Networking, Your Privacy Rights Explained

DISTIMO: Anonymous Sharing Apps

Chicago Tribune: Students Urged to Delete Controversial Social App

New York Magazine: NYU Students are Mocking Goldman Sachs Interns on Yik Yak

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Technology and the Bullying Epidemic: The Case of Yik Yak appeared first on Law Street.

I imagine the folks at places like Apple and Google have huge smirks on their faces as they watch the media frenzy Amazon Fire has caused. Why? Because companies like Apple and Google ARE technology, that’s their whole reason for existing. In contrast to them, Amazon is more like a digital supermarket with competitively priced inventory, and the added advantage of delivering its goods directly to consumers. Increasing Internet sales is its number one goal, so Amazon continually creates new apps and devices to achieve it. The difference between Amazon and a company like Google is that Amazon doesn’t have a passion for creating innovative technology for the sake of being a heavy hitter in the tech community. Due to this difference, Amazon Fire will be intriguing, until it is quickly replaced with a significantly better product.

What sets Amazon Fire apart from other smartphones is its built in and specialized Augmented Reality interface. Augmented Reality (AR) provides a connection between the real world and the digital world with overlays of video, audio, 3-D content, and location-based information. AR is what users experience with Google Glass and apps created by companies like Metaio, Layar, and Aurasma. When using the Fire phone’s firefly feature, the phone can instantly identify an object, price it,  and provide an option to buy through Amazon. This is most certainly convenient; however the phone’s built in capabilities aren’t much different from the Amazon Flow app, which is already available for both Android and iOS phones.  Although Amazon has used AR in its effort to increase sales, it definitely isn’t the first company to experiment with this technology, and it is actually behind in the ability to capitalize on all the known AR capabilities.

The use of this technology for marketing and ads as well as within specific industries like real estate has evolved since the early 2000s. Metaio is one of the first companies to promote the use of Augmented Reality through print campaigns and consumer usable home design and decoration AR solutions. Metaio, a German company, was founded in 2003 by CEO Thomas Alt. For Alt, the creation of AR stemmed from a project with Volkswagen. To build upon this technology, Metaio was awarded a German government grant to continue the work, which resulted in the creation of Augmented Reality. Since Metaio’s inception, it  has remained at the forefront of AR innovation and truly envisions AR as the new frontier. While companies like Google have partnered with Blipper to create real-time interactive image recognition Augmented Reality for Google Glass, Metaio is far more advanced.  It’s moved on to thermal touch, to make the whole world a touchscreen.

So what is my point?  Augmented Reality is the main selling point that Amazon is using to entice consumers to buy the Amazon Fire phone, but the company isn’t even using the feature its greatest abilities. Amazon Fire’s AR capabilities are basic compared to the new innovations that companies like Metaio are creating. On top of that, companies like Google have already released AR products and are continuing to push the limits of those capabilities. Google is just perfecting its established  AR and waiting to have a monster release of a product that’ll be too amazing for most people to ignore. Amazon is at a clear disadvantage due to the priorities established in its business model compared to the business models of actual tech companies. Because of this difference, technology companies can dedicate their time and resources to improving products while  Amazon is happy to have a hot product until it quickly becomes obsolete.

Think about it, when is the last time someone bought a Kindle e-reader? I imagine Amazon Fire’s product life will parallel that: big explosion and quick fizzle out.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Billy Brown via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post That Amazon Fire Phone You Pre-Ordered is Already Outdated appeared first on Law Street.

The name “Tesla” can provoke various thoughts: the character played by David Bowie in The Prestige; Tesla Motors; “tesla coil” and, of course, its inventor Mr. Nikola Tesla himself. Aside from providing the car company with a catchy name, the famous inventor’s original 1882 design of an AC motor is the predecessor to the one currently used by Tesla Motors.

On June 12, 2014 the Tesla Motors company made headlines by announcing that it would make its patents publicly available. As of the end of last year, Tesla had been issued 203 patents and had more than 280 applications pending with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

According to Tesla’s official blog, “Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.”

Why did the company release this information, allowing others to access its secrets? What does the wide availability of these patents mean for the future of Tesla Motors and the entire the auto industry?

To answer the question of why Tesla Motors made its patents publicly available, one need not search any further than the company’s website, where Musk explains the company’s hope that the wide availability will lead to rapid-evolution of the electric car industry.

Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis…We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.

-Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motor Company

Why release their patents now, though? Initially employees of Tesla Motors worried that if the technology were made public, large auto companies would copy the information and leave Tesla Motors entirely unable to compete; however, as Musk states in the blog, they quickly realized that this was not the case.

Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.

-Elon Musk

Will It Catch On?

Tesla expects this release to encourage other auto companies to build on the information, leading to the mass production of electric cars; however, despite the appeal of electric cars, they still have numerous drawbacks limiting marketability to the average consumer. For example, the vehicles typically only have a range of about 100 miles and take hours to recharge, whereas cars run by gasoline have a 300-plus mile range and only require a quick stop at a gas station to refuel. On the plus side, however, electric cars cost only 2 cents per mile to run. For electronic vehicle sales to really take off, the upfront costs will need to be substantially more affordable. Unfortunately, reducing carbon emissions alone is not motivation enough for the majority of car buyers to go electric.

Despite the fact that the number of electric vehicles sold each year does not even approach that of gasoline-powered vehicles, the number is increasing. In 2013, approximately 96,000 electronic vehicles were sold, almost doubling the number sold in 2012.

Time will tell if Tesla Motors’ release of its patents will provide sufficient motivation for other auto companies to beef up the production of electric vehicles and lead to the reduction in the impact of drivers on the environment. If this technology is embraced by other car manufacturers, the automaker community could work together to improve the way electric cars are made and marketed. Doing so would have a tremendous impact on the environment. According to research compiled by Sherry Boschert, author of the book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, use of electronic vehicles would reduce the amount of pollution released by cars between 32 and 99 percent. Though there is discrepancy between the exact amount of reduction the switch to electric cars would cause, there is a general consensus that it would be beneficial. Although no one can be sure exactly what will happen now that Tesla Motors has made their patents public, it seems to be a step in the right direction of sharing potentially valuable information throughout the industry.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [randychiu via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tesla Releases Its Patents, But is it Enough to Jump Start Electric Vehicle Production? appeared first on Law Street.

The continuing saga of false and misleading operations at various Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals throughout the country hit a new level last week. While we know that there has been a critical backlog of veterans waiting for healthcare services, the backlog itself is not the scandal. What’s got everyone upset is misconduct by VA employees who input false and misleading information into the Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA), the system used to electronically log appointment requests. The public is outraged, and rightly so, but Congress is acting just as surprised as the rest of us, and therein lies the issue. The real question the public needs to ask is, why the phony outrage Congress?

Due to public outcry, the House Veterans Affairs Committee held a hearing on June 9, 2014 entitled Oversight Hearing on Data Manipulation and Access to VA Healthcare: Testimony from GAO, IG, and VA. Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of the VA Philip Matkovsky was asked about the technology used to schedule appointments, to which he answered, “Our scheduling system made its first appointment in April of 1985…it has not changed in any appreciable manner since that date.”  Yes, you read that right. The technology currently used by the VA is more than 30 years old. Technology changes significantly each year. It’s completely unacceptable to think using a system that old would increase efficiency and remain effective. As the hearing continued, Richard J. Griffin, acting VA Inspector Generalm testified that, “Since 2005 the OIG has issued 18 reports that identified at both the national and local level, deficiencies in scheduling resulting in lengthy wait times and negative impact on patient care.”

The Veterans Administration has been championed as a pioneer in healthcare information technology. In a 2005 Senate Veterans Affairs Committee hearing entitled Information and Technology at the VA – Is It ready for the 21st Century, Deputy Secretary of Veterans Affairs Gordon Mansfield testified that his department had seen significant changes in IT operations.  A major reason this hearing was held was to discuss the VA’s use of more than $2 billion in appropriated funds to update information technology. (It should also be noted that 1,200 information technology service contracts valued at approximately $5.2 billion were awarded between October 2010 through June 2012.)  Mr. Mansfield pointed to editorials, professional journal publications, and even remarks from a speech delivered by President George W. Bush on April 27, 2004 describing his intentions to expand the VA’s electronic health records beyond the VA as examples of the great progress made. Although this testimony may seem to substantiate Congress’ claims of being unaware of the technology issues the VA faced, it does not explain why the Chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee personally requested an audit of Veterans Integrated Service Network 3 in 2008.

The Veterans Affairs Department breaks up the entire country into Veterans Integrated Service Networks to identify the clinics and hospitals Veterans are eligible to visit in their area.  VISN 3 represents portions of New York and New Jersey.  In 2008 the VA Office of the Inspector General conducted an audit on VISN 3 and this report uncovered the manipulation practices of the scheduling system that have also been identified in the current scandal. The report was sent to Michael J. Kussman, the Undersecretary of Health with recommendations; however, Mr. Kussman had this to say in response:

I have carefully reviewed your report on scheduling practices within VISN 3, and I do not concur with your conclusions and recommendations. Because the issues you cite reflect the need for national solutions to acknowledged policy-related concerns that VHA is already addressing in response to your previous reports, it is counterproductive to single out VISN 3 in your recommendations for accountability issues that apply to every other VISN, as well.

The Assistant Inspector General wasn’t going to take that lying down and responded with the following:

Contrary to the Under Secretary’s statement, we did not single out VISN 3 for this review. The Chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee requested we conduct this audit based on serious allegations the committee received that VISN 3 was intentionally distorting the numbers on waiting times. We also take exception to the Under Secretary’s non-concurrence with the report’s conclusions and recommendations based merely on the fact that the issues we reported reflect the need for national policy solutions that VHA claims they are already addressing. Our exception is based on the fact that VHA has recognized the need to improve the accuracy of waiting times data, yet has taken no meaningful action to achieve this goal to date. We can only conclude that VHA’s stated intention to correct recognized and long-standing problems is not sincere.

 

After reading several of the OIG reports it is clear that the VistA technology has a major flaw. Since the first report in 2005, the VA uncovered that scheduling can be manipulated by overwriting the Electronic Waiting List system and scheduling appointments on top of an already existing one. Overwriting the system does two things.

1. It changes the originally created date to the current date of entry, and changes the desired date to the date of the appointment, reducing the reported wait time.
2. The cancellation of the original date of creation is never recorded.  

In an attempt to make the logs appear to meet scheduling requirements, employees are able to overwrite the system to show they are in compliance with scheduling procedures even when they’re not. This has made it increasingly more difficult to identify when a request was originally created and interferes with the Veteran Affairs Department’s ability to accurately report the true wait time based on electronic waiting lists.

The OIG reports recommend stopping this employee behavior by providing training to employees to ensure compliance with scheduling systems standards. Surprisingly, there was never a recommendation for using a portion of the appropriated billions of dollars the VA Department was given on an entirely new scheduling system.

The VA’s Office of the Inspector General has issued 18 reports, each sent to Congress, and at least one of which was personally requested by a Senate Committee Chairman. Even if all 535 members of Congress weren’t aware, the members of the House and Senate Veterans Affairs Committees most certainly were. Of the several billions of dollars appropriated to the VA Department for IT operations, it’s astounding to me that nobody thought to update the technology or at the very least get rid of the overwriting loophole the employees uncovered in the system.  As seen in the 2008 report, the VA knew the problem and chose to fight among themselves instead of fixing it. Then legislators responsible for oversight of the Department pretended to be completely unaware of what was going on once the truth was reported to the public. The general public, and Veterans especially, should be upset that this was allowed to continue.  But again I must ask Congress, why the phony outrage?

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [DVIDSHUB via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why the Phony Outrage Over the VA Scandal, Congress? appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is well on its way to becoming one of the more popular global industries as household appliances and security systems go online. In the last decade, we’ve watched cell phones evolve from basic devices that could only make phone calls into pocket-sized computers that many of us would be lost without. I’m not saying we’re on our way to using our internet-connected dishwashers to play Flappy Bird, but the IoT evolution, like cell phones, is moving into a new era complete with its own cellular network.

The evolution of the IoT means that this technology is moving beyond just consumer electronics and utilities, and into transportation, healthcare, agriculture and environment, construction, and intelligent buildings. As we prepare for nearly everything to have an internet connection, we cannot ignore the amount of bandwidth that could potentially be used to connect the IoT. With worries already mounting over reaching current bandwidth limits and our ability to improve infrastructure to ensure better and faster connectivity to meet the demands of use, adding the IoT could cause us to reach bandwidth limits even faster. Wouldn’t it be great if someone created a network just for the IoT?  Well, someone did create such a network and it’s not only global, but will finally be coming to the U.S.

France-based company SigFox recently agreed to create a cellular network strictly for IoT use in Silicon Valley and the San Francisco area. While this is a new development in the U.S., SigFox’s services are already active in Spain, France, the Netherlands, and Russia. The creation of a cellular network strictly for the use of IoT connectivity will free up bandwidth used for standard internet use by computers and cell phones, allowing the faster connectivity that users have become accustomed to, to continue as usual. But concerns over bandwidth will continue as new internet-based technologies are created. For now, however, IoT may not be a threat to that.

SigFox has chosen the perfect area to test their IoT cellular network. The Silicon Valley-Bay Area is one of the largest technology hubs in the country.  Because of this, the search for a decent internet connection is at an all-time high and anything that can be done do decrease the number of connections on their geographic network is welcomed.  Although the IoT is gaining popularity nationally, this area has an abundance of consumers who are already operating IoT technologies.  If Sigfox’s IoT-only network is well received, this could become a guide for the rest of the country.  In fact, American companies like Qualcomm have also begun developing machine-only networks, which shows there could be considerable competition in the near future. More competition will allow costs for IoT connectivity to decrease and will free up space on the current network. In all, this is a win for consumers.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Geralt via Pixabay]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The IoT-Only Network is a Big Win for Consumers appeared first on Law Street.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed his new ‘net neutrality’ proposals yesterday, which essentially approve a fast lane option for companies that want to charge a higher rate for those wishing for a faster Internet based on content. (See our previous coverage on what recent developments mean for you and for startups.) Facing intense opposition, Wheeler needs to show these opposing groups that his proposed rules are part of the principle of net neutrality in the first place: that all content on the Internet will remain free in value.

The problem? The rules gut that principle entirely.

The very fact that allowing certain companies to fast-track their content violates the principle of a fair, open Internet. Wheeler’s justification for allowing the rules to go forward is that there would be regulations watching out for Internet Service Providers intentionally slowing down traffic. While this is also part of a net neutrality ideology, the rules ignore the rampant discrimination inherent in an “Internet fast lane.”

Yesterday’s FCC vote to open the proposals to public comment went largely along party lines. The three Democratic commissioners voted in favor of public comment, while the Republican commissioners voted for only Congressional comment instead and find no legal basis for the Commission to allow the public to weigh in. July 15 is the deadline for initial public comments, followed by the September 10 deadline for responses to those comments.

While this was a partisan vote down the line, the commissioners expressed hesitation for how the process is moving no matter the decision for public comment. “I believe the process that got us to this rule making today is flawed. I would have preferred a delay. I think we moved too fast, to be fair,” said Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the commissioners who voted in favor. Michael O’Reilly, a commissioner who voted against public comment, said, “I have serious concerns that this ill-advised item will create damaging uncertainty and head the commission down a slippery slope of regulation.”

Nevertheless, the FCC is now open to public comments regarding this new proposal. You can send your comment here: http://www.fcc.gov/comments.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Gerd Altmann via Pixabay].

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Last Gasps of Net Neutrality appeared first on Law Street.

This week we saw the shocking, leaked video of Solange Knowles physically attacking brother in-law Jay Z while her sister, Beyoncé, looked on. I’ll admit that it’s natural to be entertained by celebrities misbehaving, but putting that element aside, where does surveillance and security end and privacy begin? Elevator cameras are installed for security purposes, but this is a prime example of how surveillance can be misused. We see cameras on buildings, inside elevators, and just about everywhere we go without questioning how that footage is being used, or perhaps misused. The common use of surveillance technology will continue to increase if left unchecked — especially in the law enforcement.

This increased acceptance of security surveillance has contributed to law enforcement taking new measures to monitor us all on a grander scale and for longer periods of time.  New surveillance technologies have emerged that allow local law enforcement to use special aircraft equipped with powerful cameras to capture and record real-time images over large amounts of space. Not only will these cameras record a broader area, they will also have the capability to record for longer lengths of time as compared to traditional camera-equipped helicopters.

These digital technologies are capable of motion detection and zoom of movement. This means no matter how far away a person is, his or her movement can be detected and observed more closely with the zoom capabilities. Persistent Surveillance Systems is one of the companies assisting local law enforcement with their missions to decrease crime and bring criminals to justice through the use of surveillance technology.

The Ohio-based company touts itself as a full-service, wide-area surveillance provider with experience in border control, law enforcement operations, and event security. Persistent Surveillance Systems even reached out to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and convinced it to use the technology to monitor the streets of Compton, with one big selling point being that this method is less expensive than using the police helicopters. LA County provides just one, though by no means is it the only, example of where this monitoring is employed.

It is unclear how successful Los Angeles’ use of this type of surveillance technology is  in an attempt to quell crime because no data has yet been released. What is clear, however, is that this technology is so expansive it isn’t limited to targeting criminals. The footage also includes law-abiding citizens carrying on the regular functions of their day. Some may argue that being constantly recorded isn’t troubling because they have nothing to hide, but where does the trade off of privacy for security end?

With little to no regulation of this technology and the dependence on private companies to provide this surveillance service, the possibility of misuse increases. There are many more questions than answers, but we must be aware of the possibilities and consequences of being constantly watched. We all have the right to privacy. How far are we willing to use our technological capabilities to impede that?

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a recent Graduate of Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [idrewuk via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You and Beyonce Have Something in Common: Constant Surveillance appeared first on Law Street.

Tech startup Alibaba is making major headlines with its decision to file for an IPO. Alibaba is certainly different than many other tech companies. While many startups tout abilities to disrupt the market, Alibaba depends on China’s shift to a more western structure in which spending is valued over saving. Time will tell if Alibaba is right in its assumptions.

One of Alibaba’s creations is called WeChat — an app that attempts to change the way people communicate. With 12 different features, the technology shows extraordinary promise in accomplishing its goal. Among other things, users can live and group chat, make video calls, web WeChat, and Facebook connect.  Although many of these features are already popular, WeChat’s ability to combine all of our favorite tools into one app and include several lesser known features makes it unique.

Let’s take a look at the group chat QR code. In the WeChat app, QR codes are used to allow Apple, Windows, Blackberry, and Android phones to scan a code assigned to the group chat in order to temporarily connect the user’s web browser with her phone. This means that instead of being confined to just your phone, you can use the QR code to mobilize the app on various devices.

WeChat provides social features like shake and look around, which sets it apart from similar apps like the popular WhatsApp. The shake feature asks users to shake their phones and connects them with local people who shake their phones at the same time, allowing connections to people in your vicinity. I’m not sure how useful that particular feature is, but it does seem like an interesting way to meet new people. The look around feature is similar to shake in the sense that people have a chance to connect with other WeChat users in the area: once you turn on the look around feature, you’re able to see all the people nearby who have also activated it and send a greeting to people of interest.

Finally, the drift bottle feature allows you to create a voice text message and throw it into the WeChat ocean.  A person can come along and choose the option to pick up your drift bottle.  After reading the message, users have the option to either respond or throw it back into the WeChat ocean. It’s a pretty fun feature and could end up being a good time depending on the message you pick up.

The use of new social features and QR codes sets this communication app apart from the masses.  Alibaba managed to take communication technology in a different direction than most people would expect, and it seems to be paying off. Maybe the new approach to becoming a publicly traded company will have the same positive results.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Rico Shen via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alibaba Creates a Stir With IPO Filing and WeTalk App appeared first on Law Street.

The difference between believing that the internet is vital to life and just accepting it as a useful tool is the difference between having government regulation and allowing the market to regulate it on its own. Nobody supports unwarranted government interference, but it would be unwise to think government involvement for the purpose of regulating industries is unnecessary. This brings me to the topic of Open Internet, also known as net neutrality.

In January, the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia changed several rules established in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order. The Court’s decision rolled back the rules that disabled the blocking of legal content and enforced nondiscriminatory practices, but upheld the rule that enforced transparency. The Court’s decision terrified many people and left us wondering how open and free the internet will remain. Recently, an official document was leaked that may give insight to exactly where the FCC is headed in regulating net neutrality, and unfortunately the odds look like they’re in favor of major Internet Service Providers.

The leaked FCC documents show that the Commission is considering allowing major Internet Service Providers to give large, well known companies the option of paying for faster lanes through which their videos and other content travel. This amounts to deregulating the more equalizing practice of having all content from all companies travel the same internet lanes. This means that well established companies will have an extra advantage in supplying their content to their users. How is this harmful to small startups and new innovation?

In the age of faster is better, the ability to use a service faster is more likely to be chosen over a service that runs slower. For example, you can either choose wireless internet or dial-up. They both supply an internet connection, but when was the last time you heard the screeching sound of a dial-up connection?…. Exactly!  If the FCC follows through with this idea, small startups will not be able to compete against the financial strength of giants that have the resources to provide speedier service. In addition, these costs for faster internet lanes may be passed to consumers as companies work to maintain profits.

Another possibility that hasn’t been talked about is the larger companies’ ability to recreate the innovations of smaller, lesser known companies. For example, if Company X creates a new way to shop on the internet and the larger Company Z recreates this technology, Company Z would have the advantage of faster internet speed to their site over Company X.  Even though Company X created the technology, Company Z would benefit, leaving small startups asking “what’s the point in trying?”

With our economy’s strength and growth hinging on new innovation, it is counterproductive to have an unfair system that doesn’t allow companies both large and small to have the same service capabilities. This goes directly against the entrepreneurial spirit of our country and shows that lawmakers have gotten it wrong in their assertion that the internet is important but not vital.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Svilen.milev via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leaked FCC Documents Signal Bad News for Startups appeared first on Law Street.

Tech startup Aereo continued to disrupt the market this week when the Supreme Court heard arguments in the American Broadcasting Companies Inc. v. Aereo Inc. case. The case has garnered lots of attention in the technology community due to the implications it may have on Cloud services. Essentially, Aereo provides an electronic antenna that picks up and broadcasts existing signals with the added bonus of being a virtual recorder and storage locker.  Aereo’s creation is brilliant, but as seems to be the case with many such tech developments, it may have outpaced current laws and policy.

Broadcasting companies believe copyrighted content is illegally transmitted through the internet from Aereo to Aereo’s paying subscribers. Companies such as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, and PBS allege that the company is publicly performing by transmitting content without proper licensing and payment of royalty fees — a violation of intellectual property laws.

Broadcast Companies are using the 1976 Copyright Act definition of transmission to prove that Aereo’s transmission of content is a public performance, while Aereo’s customers are private performers. This distinction is important because private performances are exempt from obtaining licenses and paying fees for copyrighted content, while public performances are not.  Paul Clement, the attorney working on behalf of the broadcast company petitioners, recognizes that a person or company that sells traditional antennas would not be involved in a public performance; however, he asserts that Aereo’s use of ongoing services, even if considered a rented service, exploits the use of copyrighted works and therefore represents a public performance and a violation of the Copyright Act.

In response to questions from Justices Alito and Kennedy about the difference between Aereo’s services and the DVR service provided by companies like CableVision, Clement responded that unlike Aereo, CableVision acquired licenses to receive their content in the first place. Because CableVision’s customers are recording and storing content for private use that the company was given permission to transmit, CableVision’s DVR service was rightfully excluded from obtaining a reproduction license. Aereo did not obtained permission to access the content that they allow their customers to stream, record, and store.

The use of Aereo allows its customers to only view local over-the-air broadcasts, the signals for which are free to the public, which makes the sale and private use of antennas to disseminate these broadcasts a lawful act. Aereo asserts that they are not publicly performing because they are equipment providers, no different than a company that sells antennas. This equipment provides access to free, public content, which is different from providing content in the first place. Aereo attorney David Frederick cited Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios as precedent for the lawful use of Aereo’s DVR service. The Sony decision held that consumers have the right to record local over-the-air broadcasts for private use. Since Aereo is renting equipment that provides access to free local content, the company argues that they’re not in violation of the Copyright Act.

What is bothersome to Aereo, and potentially problematic to Cloud service, is the interpretation of the Copyright Act’s Transmission Clause. Aereo believes that the petitioners’ interpretation qualifies any device or process disseminating works to the public, as a public performance, thereby requiring licenses and payment of royalties, which could be detrimental to cloud computing. Clement; however, was clear on the subject of cloud computing and doesn’t believe a decision in his clients’ favor should threaten that technology’s future.

Whether anyone believes that a decision against Aereo should threaten Cloud’s future or not is irrelevant — the more important question is, could it be applied when considering cloud computing? I’m not sure how the Supreme Court will rule, but I do believe this decision will affect cloud computing no matter the outcome.

Aereo is the twenty-first century solution to the discontinued use of antennas and VCRs. If the Supreme Court rules in its favor, Aereo could build on its existing technology and become an entity more comparable to a cable company, at which time they should be responsible for proper licensing and adherence to copyright laws. Technology is constantly changing and challenging older, more established technologies and industries — this is exactly what drives continued innovation. A ruling against Aereo would stifle this innovative growth.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Adam Fagen via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aereo Technology Drives Innovation, But How Will SCOTUS Rule? appeared first on Law Street.

I recently discovered Tinder, the latest dating app craze, after a friend tweeted about her shame over having to create a Facebook account just to use the Tinder app.  At that time I was unaware of the app’s existence and decided to ask my significant other about it — which was a huge mistake.   At the mere mention of Tinder I was banned from even thinking about it. Fortunately for all of us, I feel that as a technology blogger it is my duty to investigate this new phenomena and give a report.

So what is Tinder? It’s a dating app, available on Apple and Android phones, that allows users to find people in their area whom they’re are attracted to and send them an alert. To do this, you have to log into Facebook and turn on your phone’s GPS.  As with many other apps, the use of Facebook is to verify a person’s identity, and the GPS allows the app to know your location. Based on your Facebook picture and information, Tinder creates your profile. To be clear, not all of your Facebook information is visible, only your picture, age, and first name. The creation of a profile allows your information to be seen and sent to other Tinder users in the area.

Next, the profiles of users nearby are sent to your phone and Tinder gives you the option to either like or pass. If you like the profile, an alert will be sent to that user. If someone likes your profile, then an alert will be sent to you. If both users like each other, then you probably guessed by now that the app connects them to each other. What happens after that is up to you.

There have been complaints of difficulties when using the app. Slow picture uploading, an inability to find Tinder users in one’s area, and issues logging in are just a few. Recently, Tinder upgraded the app to improve picture deleting time, correct minor crashes and issues, and hide common interests and friends from being viewed in a user’s profile. The issue of finding Tinder users nearby will probably correct itself as more people download the app. One of the most important new features is the photo zoom.  Why is photo zoom important, you ask?  Because this is Tinder, not Match.com!

In the dating world, who approaches a person because they appear to possess strong family values? Nobody, that’s who. This is what sets Tinder apart from other dating apps. Unlike with others, you won’t waste time finding out you’re compatible just to click on a picture that makes you change your mind. Tinder depends on a shared physical attraction between its users before it connects them — and this more closely resembles what happens in real life. I’m not sure if creating a dating app to resemble actual dating life was Tinder’s intention, but that’s not the only way people are using it.

In practice, Tinder is used as a hook-up app, or as a source of entertainment. On the hook-up side, users are logging on, swapping likes with people they’re attracted to and meeting them to… you know. I’m not saying that every person who uses Tinder is looking for this kind of situation, but it is happening. For entertainment, people like my friends are using Tinder to look at the awkward messages men send them and laugh. Others, the rare few, are actually committing to dates and using the app the way it was created to be used.

Tinder, like any dating app can be used to find great people in your area to create meaningful relationships with. Don’t get upset if someone approaches you in a way that seems brash and slightly shocking. Don’t be surprised if the person you’re messaging is being silly and using Tinder as a way to safely talk to strangers. For all the single adults out there, enjoy. For those adults in relationships, enjoy at your own risk. For all of you who are as intrigued as I was… check it out.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Kenny Louie via Flickr] 

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Want to Hook Up? Better Get on Tinder appeared first on Law Street.

It seems like the US just can’t catch a break on the international relations front these days. Just in case you aren’t aware, America is very publicly getting her ass handed to her on the global stage. I’m not even going to talk about the Russia and Crimea disaster. I’ll roll right over Venezuela forcing American Embassy officials to leave, and bashing Panama for being the United States’ “lackey.” What I really want to talk about is the latest incident between the US and Cuba, which is quite interesting, and more importantly, involves our favorite topic — technology.

To set this up, Cuba is open about its vigilant monitoring and prevention of access to communication and the internet. Ramiro Valdes, former Cuban telecommunications minister, referred to the internet as a “wild colt,” believing it “should be tamed.”  With that pointed out, is it wrong to let a country decide their own internet restrictions and communication freedoms?

It’s reported that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) spent an estimated $1.6 million to develop and implement Zunzuneo, a Cuban social network similar to Twitter. The Associated Press claimed that USAID conspired to influence political thought and incite support of the Cuban people to challenge their government. In addition, there were suggestions that USAID wanted to gather important information of Cuban cellphone users.

Zunzuneo’s implementation was somewhat elaborate. The use of offshore bank accounts and operating companies, marketing campaigns to encourage new users, and mock ads to give the appearance of a legitimate company, were all enlisted to hide the social media platform’s origin. Zunzuneo gained a following of nearly 40,000 over its two-year existence, but the program abruptly ended after losing its funding in 2012. Yesterday Congress requested a hearing with USAID’s  Administrator, Rajiv Shah, to question him on the program’s purpose and if it sought to gather information about Cuban cellphone users. In response Shah said, “The purpose of the program was to support access to information and to allow people to communicate with each other.”  USAID has also released their eight facts about ZunZuneo.

That’s USAID’s story, and they’re sticking to it. However, let’s critically think this through. The US has never gotten over its inability to make Cuba revolt against Castro, nor can they accept the loss of influence the US had over the Cuban government.  Also, in 2010 we witnessed several countries rising up against their governments and succeeding in overthrowing them. Much of the ability of protesters and revolutionaries was due to technology, specifically social media outlets like YouTube and Twitter to communicate to the masses both inside and outside of their countries.

The influence of social media is quite evident, which is why people and organizations are always asking us to check out their Facebook page and tweet them. USAID is known for providing services and resources to populations around the world in need — because of this reputation, we shouldn’t discount their claims of wanting to provide a kind of technology and communication to a population that doesn’t have it. In acknowledging this possibility, I also have to acknowledge that if a government agency wanted to influence young people in another country, the use of social media would probably be  the most helpful in accomplishing that goal.

__

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did USAID Actually Create Zunzuneo, the Cuban Twitter? appeared first on Law Street.

Mahana, the latest development in the race to serve millions of diners, will be the most tech-friendly way to do fine dining. Beautifully designed and easy to use, the app offers an array of convenient options to users, including reviews and wait times. The Austin-based company founded last summer just finished its private beta testing phase. The company expects to officially launch the app this summer once public testing closes. With all of its wonderful features, I wanted to know the inspiration behind the app’s creation. Luckily Mahana Co-Founder Richard Bagdonas was kind enough to speak with me about the company’s purpose and plans for future growth.

Mr. Bagdonas, who has been involved in hospitality app development for the last four years, decided to create Mahana in order to fill a need in this huge market.

“Companies wanted it.  I was hearing from restaurant owners that filling orders for pick-up wasn’t the biggest problem.  The problem restaurants are having is that they need more guests inside of the restaurant.  More guests means more need for wait staff and servers and helps owners identify repeat customers.”

The restaurants on Mahana are considered upper casual and fine dining, so a meal for two could range from $100-$120 — locations that most people are unlikely to visit more than once a week. As a result, the ability for participating restaurants to follow who is coming in, what they’re ordering, and how often they frequent the location is an incredibly valuable tool. So far Mahana has been received very well in Austin, and according to Mr. Bagdonas there are “two dozen restaurants on the waiting list.”

When you download the Mahana app, you’re asked to sign in via Facebook. I thought this was interesting but also wondered why the app requires this particular access method. According to Mr. Bagdonas,

“Facebook is very good at identifying if a person is who they say they are.  Years ago, Facebook stopped allowing users to create fake pages so instead of reinventing a verification system, we decided to use one that is already established.  Also, Facebook is good for tracking important dates like birthdays and anniversaries.  Having this information allows restaurants to provide special deals and promotions to its customers based on that information.”

I’ll be honest, I was a little skeptical about this required Facebook integration, but after everything was explained, it makes perfect sense. So now I’m waiting to see what kind of deals my impending birthday may bring my way. Thank you Mahana!

If the idea of finding a charming fine dining restaurant wrapped in a sleek and user-friendly app doesn’t interest you, maybe the other features will. All the information you need from an establishment’s opening and closing times, to the address and telephone number are all provided with a picture of  the restaurant’s interior set as the background. For me, getting a glimpse inside the restaurant is something small, but it’s one of my favorite things about Mahana. It’s hard enough to pick out something to wear when I actually know where I’m going, so imagine what I put everyone through when I’m not sure what the place looks like. This app will save so many significant others from the irritation that goes along with having picky “I don’t know what to wear” partners.

Users have the option of choosing the map view to find a restaurant based on location or they can choose the list view to search the name of a specific establishment. Once you choose a restaurant, make sure your phone’s Bluetooth is on so that the restaurant knows exactly where you are and the app can alert them of your arrival time. Also, for customers with food allergies, you can record this information into the app and trust that this vital information is communicated to the wait staff on your behalf.

Mahana will definitely change how upper casual and fine dining is done. The company does have plans for the app to work nationally, but they’re looking for feedback from users to let them know what areas they should come to next. To learn more about Mahana and persuade them to come to your city, visit their Facebook, mention them on Twitter @getmahana, or visit their website.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New App Mahana Takes Fine Dining Into the Tech Age appeared first on Law Street.

Patent trolls have long been a problem in the realm of intellectual property, but companies have yet to devise a solution to successfully combat against them. As the years have gone by, patent trolls have no longer solely affected the technology industry but have begun to target many other businesses as well.

Well, now the government is getting involved in this widespread issue. The Senate is considering a bill, the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act that would force the losers of patent lawsuits to cover the winner’s legal fees in order to minimize patent trolling. The bill is similar to one that passed the House this past December. Diane Feinstein, a Democratic Senator from California, stated, “I think we are united on the troll. The troll must go.” The White House also has said it supports the measure.

Will Congress’ actions, if implemented, help to prevent patent trolling? There is evidence that suggests it will.

Making the losing party pay the other party’s legal fees will discourage patent trolls from pursuing legal action. Engaging in litigation can be a taxing and costly process, especially for small businesses, who lack the funds to engage in huge lawsuits. And in 2011, small businesses encompassed 90 percent of patent troll victims. The cost to defendants in a patent lawsuit can range from two to six million dollars. However, now faced with potential consequences, these companies engaging in patent trolling will have to think twice before filing lawsuit and extract licensing fees.

In addition, the bill would help protect true innovators. The bill’s provisions deter patent trolling companies, which exist solely to make a profit and do not actually contribute real innovation. These companies don’t create anything themselves; instead, they buy old patents and use them to file suits against other companies. Since patent trolling companies make their money off of legal cases, the potential cost not only deters these companies from filing lawsuits but also discourages anyone from forming these ventures in the first place.

Meanwhile, businesses that are actually creating innovative products or services can benefit from the bill. 40 percent of small businesses affected by patent trolls stated that the lawsuits they were forced to undergo hurt their business and ability to innovate. With the decreased threat of patent trolls, businesses will feel freer to create unique and new products without worrying about frivolous lawsuits.

The bill potentially also evens out the bias in the legal system that has long worked in favor of plaintiffs in intellectual property cases. Suing a company or individual over patent rights is relatively simple and inexpensive, but defending them can be extremely complex and costly. The fact is, patent cases are difficult to defend, many businesses are forced to settle out of court, which still costs them. Knowing that losers will have to pay for legal fees will encourage businesses to hold out for court settlement, whereas patent trollers will have a much harder time to defend their bogus claims.

While the bill exhibits many benefits against patent trolling, another question arises in the discussion of the bill: How will it affect legitimate patent litigation?

Some worry that the bill, while working against bogus patent troll lawsuits, could also affect litigation of serious infringements on patent rights. Skeptics of the bill argue that the bill goes too far and it could make it more difficult for inventors to profit from their innovations. Combatting this fear, several senators note that any legislation they support will protect the rights of companies that have legitimate claims to sue. Plus, parties with real claims of patent infringement still have the advantage of being the plaintiff in lawsuit, and can be confident of winning if their claim is truly legitimate. While fears of protecting innovation are not unfounded, those entering lawsuits to protect their legitimate patents need not fear of taking legal action.

If the bill passes in Congress and is signed into law by President Obama, businesses entangled in frivolous lawsuits will gain vital help in protecting their companies from patent trolls.

[Reuters] [Forbes] [Nextgov] [The Hill]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post S.1720: A Real Solution to Patent Trolling? appeared first on Law Street.

Austin, Texas is home to many innovative tech startups. Recently I discovered a wonderful peer-to-peer bike sharing startup with its own cool app. Spokefly and founder Nate McGuire are excited to provide the city of Austin, and eventually areas throughout the country, with an easy to use, technology-supported way to bike! Nate graciously agreed to an interview and I’m happy to share all the Spokefly details. If you’re seeking more information, you can check them out at www.spokefly.com or tweet them @Spokefly. Prepare for the Spokefly greatness!

Spokefly, a six-month-old company, has gone live but won’t be considered officially launched until it moves into an additional city. Right now the company is working to expand to DC and the Bay Area. When I asked Nate how he came up with the idea for a peer-to-peer bike share, he said he was first inspired by his friends who were able to get around Austin much faster during rush hour because they biked. After realizing how efficient bikes could be, he decided to create a peer-to-peer bike share that didn’t have the same limitations as Austin’s bike share. Unlike the city’s program, Spokefly allows customers to browse an app and select from a variety of listed bikes, with the advantage of docking the bike at any rack throughout the city. Spokefly just changed the game.

Spokefly allows riders to use their app to reserve a bike. Available to both Android and Apple users, there will be a new release of the mobile app within the next two weeks. Once the bike is reserved, riders are given a combination number to unlock it. At that point, the rider is free to go anywhere they need to in the city. Once they’re finished, they find the nearest bike rack to dock and lock the bike, and then check it in using the app on their phone. It’s nice, easy, and most importantly convenient. The GPS on the rider’s phone records the bike’s location, allowing other users to find it. My only concern, which I shared with Nate, was the potential to have all the bikes end up in the same area; however, Nate assured me that because of Spokefly’s large-scale distribution system, they are able to make sure bikes are spread throughout the city, allowing customers to always have easy access.

People interested in joining Spokefly can select one of three membership options, and can even list their bike to receive a 50 percent discount on monthly membership. Spokefly has been received very well in Austin, especially with college students. Nate was happy to announce that students with unlimited monthly memberships are now using Spokefly almost as their primary mode of transportation. I definitely see the appeal. Aside from the freedom of docking the bike anywhere, biking is already a better cost saving mode of transportation. With biking there are no costs for gas, parking, or insurance. For a monthly fee, Spokefly users with unlisted bikes don’t even have to buy a bike or worry about storage or maintenance. As if Spokefly wasn’t already sweet, they’re also considering creating an option for app users to request on-demand public delivery.

Nate made it clear that Spokefly reviews all bikes before they agree to list them, and requires owners to constantly maintain the bikes to ensure they are safe for all riders. Because owners are responsible for providing combination locks to secure the bikes, Spokefly has a list of acceptable locks for participation in the program, and the company will refuse to list any bike that doesn’t meet all safety requirements, including providing that approved combination lock.

After speaking with Nate McGuire and confirming the utility, convenience, and safety of Spokefly, I’m just waiting for it to come to DC.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Spokefly, Austin Tech Startup, Spreads Peer-to-Peer Bike Sharing appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we love startups (probably because we are one). So of course we furiously followed Interactive week at SXSW. Honestly, while interactive week needs no explanation, I’ll throw a bone for the individuals who’ve been living under a rock. Now Interactive week just ended but to honor its entrepreneurial spirit, I want to highlight startups that are exploding onto the scene and are innovative, cool, maybe a little outrageous, or some combination of the three. Here are the five startups I suggest you keep an eye on:

1. The Cocksman Club

This startup, founded by Ethan Basch, offers a male-only subscription-based condom service that encourages safe sex. Basch offers a variety of membership models, starting at ‘The Player’ (3 condoms for 5 bucks a month) to ‘The Legend’ (a whopping 24 condoms for 20 bucks a month). Frankly, this is a little bizarre and I am having a hard time not laughing, but I can’t knock his entrepreneurial spirit — clearly, someone is buying into this model. Also, I can’t be mad at a startup that uses a little humor to promote safe sex.

2.  Spritz Technology Inc.

Spritz, a personal favorite, is a Boston-based startup that is revolutionizing how one reads. They developed a speed reading technology in 2011 but garnered very little traction until now.  So what is this speed reading technology? Spritz streams one word at a time at various speeds to cut down the amount of time that the eye uses in moving from word to word in a sentence. Theoretically, this allows a person to consume the text at a quicker rate.

Spritz’s main focus is to patent the technology rather than diversifying into app development at the moment, though I doubt that they will stay away from mobile development indefinitely. Currently, Spritz is close to closing 3.5 million in seed money so I can only imagine how they will grow in the coming months.

3.  Ringblingz

Everyone knows that in order to make something go viral or become profitable you have to target teenage girls. In the U.S, teens alone spend $208 billion on themselves. And well, nobody knows this better than Ringblingz. The New York-based startup hopes to tap into this market by offering wearable technology and just debuted their first product: a smart ring. The smart ring can send alerts from your favorite contacts on different social media websites so you don’t have to constantly check your phone. Pretty cool, right? This is just one of many projects coming out. So why should you watch them? Here is the answer: you might have heard of Ringblingz’s founders, Rich and Sheri Schmelzer. Do ugly Croc charms ring a bell? Well, it’s not a secret that I find Croc charms and Crocs, for that matter, to be ugly, but the charms created by Jibbitz were a huge success. There is undeniable business pedigree backing this startup, which makes the company’s future very interesting.

4. Yik Yak

While everyone is freaking out about the new apps Secret and Whisper, you should add Yik Yak to the list. The app follows the new anonymity trend happening across web and mobile development. This startup, founded by two Furman University students, Tyrell Droll and Brooks Buffington, aims to connect through anonymous location-based posts but is definitely geared to college campuses. Yik Yak has already exploded onto the scene with more than 100,000 active monthly users. Also, three words: Juicy Campus Revival. I remember laughing at the crazy posts on Juicy Campus as a college freshman, but also the website had a serious dark, shady side.

So I am not surprised that they have already faced issues and criticism about possibly violating anti-bullying laws. Hopefully the app has continued success and we only see posts about the outrageous, weird, or gut-bustingly hilarious college incidents.

5. Opternative

This is probably the most interesting startup on the list. Opternative is a Chicago-based startup, founded by Dr. Steven Lee and Aaron Dallek, that offers a quick online eye exam for $35. Exams are reviewed by ophthalmologists and you can get digital prescriptions that can be filled anywhere. I don’t know about you but my mind is blown.

Before medical professionals unleash their pitchforks, Dallek wants Opternative to be “not just an online eye exam but the gold standard digital eye exam that doctors could administer in their offices,” according to TechCrunch. Opternative not only wants to revolutionize the standard for eye exams but also, the whole medical process.

You might find these startups weird, crazy, or bizarre but you shouldn’t be surprised that they are here. It is becoming easier to translate ideas into a viable business model. Definitely keep an eye on these five.

—

Ashley Powell (@danceAPdance)

Ashley Powell

Ashley Powell is a founding member of Law Street Media, and its original Lead Editor. She is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Watch List: 5 Crazy, Cool, or Just Plain Bizarre Startups to Watch appeared first on Law Street.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Keep the Love Between Us appeared first on Law Street.

Temporarily escaping the real world while sitting in a theater enveloped by the kind of darkness that can make even the most crowded place feel isolating is a compelling enough reason for me to shell out the money for a movie ticket. But the same can’t be said for some other people. Some can create the same experience in the comfort of their own home with the help of Netflix or diligent web searching for a free version of the latest blockbusters. And who can blame them? Even thought new technology is constantly created, the movie projection industry hasn’t done much to upgrade their technology and improve the viewing experience over the last 60 years. That is, until now.

Movie projectors switched to digital systems around 2000; however, the systems still rely on a 60-year-old technology known as xenon electric-arc lamps. The arc lamps lose their brightness over time, and result in diminished clarity and dimmed illumination. This deterioration of picture quality forces theaters to continually replace equipment or allow customers to suffer through poorly lit movies. Fortunately for movie goers, Laser Light Engines, debuted a new laser projection system that corrects for the problems the old system experiences. The NH’based company’s latest movie projection technology will use lasers to improve the clarity of all images and will significantly enhance 3D projection in a way that has never before been possible.

While all movies will have improved picture, the push for laser projection is directly linked to the demand for 3D movies and the terrible illumination associated with them. For example, one of the popular systems used to project 3D movies is known as the TI system. This system is complex and involves specialized lenses, polarized beams of light, and loads of other technical things that most people can’t explain nor do they care to know about. Anyway, the TI system, in tandem with the arc lamps and their issues of decreased brightness, plus the use of 3D glasses can reduce the brightness of 3D movies by nearly 80 percent. Yes, those awesome 3D movies like Avatar and Gravity that you thought were amazing, may have been 80 percent less amazing than they could’ve been. With laser projection, those days are gone, and we’ll be able to view 3D as it was meant to be seen.

In addition to the enhanced picture quality, Laser Light Engines’ system will create a standardized system for movie capture, distribution, and encryption of digital movies, leading to better movie content security. This is a huge plus for production companies and theaters that lose millions due to illegally manufactured movies. Another benefit of using laser technology systems is that the cost of the new technology is cheaper than the older xenon electric-arc lamps. Consumers will have the bonus of a more clearly projected movie that will also cost less for theaters to provide. (I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on lower ticket prices, though.)

The only thing I’m honestly upset about is that I won’t be able to catch the new 300 Rise of an Empire movie in all its laser-projected glory. If only the movie Gods would let it be. Other than that minor issue, I say let the laser movie projection commence!

Featured image courtesy of [LG전자 via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Movies Are About to Get 80 Percent More Visually Exciting appeared first on Law Street.

In response to Target’s massive data breach affecting nearly 110 million consumers, the Data Security and Breach Notification Act has been introduced in the U.S. Senate. Both Target and its customers were victims of the 2013 cyberattack, which increased susceptibility to identity theft for customers, and tanked profits for the company. The new legislation attempts to increase the security of consumer information, and to set requirements for companies to notify consumers and government agencies of security breaches.

The Act will establish six requirements for companies to increase data security protection: 

1. Create a security policy with respect to the collection, use, sale, dissemination, and maintenance of personal information.
2. Identify a point of contact who is responsible for the management of information security.
3. Create a process to identify and assess possible vulnerabilities within the security systems maintained by the company, including regular monitoring for breaches.
4. Create a process to make necessary changes to security practices used to maintain personal information including architecture, installation, and operating software.
5. Create a process to dispose data in electronic form by destroying, erasing, or encrypting the information.
6. Implement a standard method(s) to destroy paper and other non-electronic data that contains personal information.

While some companies maintain their own security of personal information, others contract this responsibility to third party groups. In the event of a security breach, this legislation requires any group responsible for maintaining personal information to contact the Federal Trade Commission, and to contact all consumers whose information may have been compromised. Consumers must be contacted either by mail, email, or telephone, and it is the company’s responsibility to create a hotline or website to provide additional information to those affected by the breach. If a security breach affects more than 5,000 people, companies are required to notify all major credit reporting agencies. Also, some companies will be responsible for providing at least one free credit report per quarter for each consumer with compromised personal information, for up to two years.

Some covered companies, like small businesses and non-profit organizations, that are unable to provide free credit reports due to cost may be exempt from this practice.  Additionally, companies that find other correspondence methods too costly may employ alternative notification methods like contacting print and broadcast media to inform the public. If a company does not follow the reporting requirements and are not exempted from certain practices, they can be fined.

If this legislation is passed, a company’s data security will not improve as a result of it, but rather in spite of it. Companies are improving security to combat the threat of class-action lawsuits and enormous financial losses as a result of a security breach without federal action. The Data Security and Breach Notification Act fails to understand that companies are also victims when dealing with cyberattacks, and no matter what security measures are in place, all electronic information is vulnerable to being hacked. The bill also fails to acknowledge the role bankcards play in the insecurity of personal information. As noted by David French, Vice President of The National Retail Federation, the bankcard industry prefers magnetic strip cards over PIN-and-Chip technology, which is more secure. Retail companies cannot be the only group held accountable for the actions of cyber criminals.

Requiring companies to notify government organizations, credit reporting agencies, and consumers is a more effective policy.  Although companies are improving cybersecurity, a breach in that security could cause companies to hide or delay informing consumers. This delay may impede a person from contacting their financial institution in time to prevent the misuse of his personal information. Another benefit of requiring companies to inform the public of a breach is that it reduces the consumer burden of proving identity fraud. Consumers need to be protected, and when companies fall short of providing that protection, they have a responsibility to assist consumers in correcting the company’s mistake; however, lawmakers should consider that consumers and companies are victims of data security breaches, and that different industries influence the ability to effectively secure data.

—

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Potter/StockMonkeys.com via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Security Breach: The Senate Wants to Protect Your Information appeared first on Law Street.

Internet legalities, security, and commerce are confusing. There a lot of gray areas when it comes to what is legal but also, the consequences for internet crimes are clearly lacking as well. If there is no fear of the law, what incentive is there for people to abide by the law? One ubiquitous internet crime is piracy, or the act of obtaining copy written content without paying for it. This type of crime is conducted by a variety of methods; among them are peer to peer downloading and streaming.

Let’s take a look at the history…

Obtaining content online first commenced with downloading information from a single location. Downloading is the process of copying data, usually an entire file from a main source to a peripheral device. The term is often used to describe the process of copying a file from an online service or bulletin board service (BBS) to one’s own computer. During a direct download, you are only downloading the file(s) from an individual server unlike a torrent.

Today, torrenting is much more popular, where users download crowd sourced content. Torrenting is the act of downloading files from a large network in which all of the users are sharing the same file. A torrent allows you to download the file from multiple users, with the capability to also share some of it back. Both the act of downloading and torrenting content violates the Copyright Act of 1976.

While it is evident that downloading/ torrenting is an issue looking at Voltage Pictures Case, the new issue in piracy is streaming. Streaming is simply the method of relaying the data over a computer network as a steady continuous stream, allowing playback to proceed while subsequent data is being receive

It is significantly more difficult to file lawsuits against perpetrators who are streaming; they are not hosting or sharing the file. Likewise, obtaining IP addresses and personal info of people who stream videos is complicated. Torrents are much easier to track due to file sharing during downloading. This in itself, make torrents easier cases to prosecute. For the time being, companies mainly target the low hanging fruit- people who download from torrents.

Most notably, the latest streaming issue is with Aereo. Currently, Aereo batting television providers  in the Supreme Court. They created an antenna that could receive “free” television, and then charged others to view it using the cable from their antenna.

So is streaming content safe and legal?  

Streaming is a slippery slope for prosecutors, as there are no definitive answers to this question. The answer depends on many variables including the site and file type. Due to the lack of any conclusive rulings, the legality of streaming is in a state of limbo. In an attempt to clear the air, the Copyright Office contends there is no violation when a reproduction manifests itself in a fleeting manner that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated. Though the law is convoluted, it is useful to note that owners, such as the Motion Picture Association of America, rarely go after individuals who watch streaming movies. Illegal or not, it’s costly and difficult to track these users down.

Even if the ruling comes down as piracy, I would compare this activity to jaywalking. Yes, it is considered illegal. Yes, you should not do it. But the fact of the matter is everyone does it.

[Mother Jones] [Aereo]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Streaming become Illegal? appeared first on Law Street.

Bitcoin  — the cryptocurrency in the form of digital coins — allows financial transactions to be completed over the internet without the use of banks or a clearing house.  (Click here to read Bitcoin for Beginners.) There are plenty of positives that come along with this currency: it reduces the cost of transactions, as the fees are significantly lower than those with traditional electronic transactions; there are no  prerequisites or qualifications to gain access to Bitcoin; and  unique to its creation, the coins, which are stored in free, user-created digital wallets, can be used in any country. With that said, there are real concerns surrounding the coins.

Unlike paper currency, Bitcoin is not backed by any government or any other currency standard such as gold. One huge difference between traditional currency and Bitcoin is that there will only ever be 21 million coins available. Unlike traditional currencies, producing more Bitcoins, or taking some out of circulation, is not an option, and many of the people currently holding them are hoarding them. This has increased speculation and contributed to the huge increase in cryptocurrency value over a short time. Once people realize that there are only a small amount of coins available to purchase out of the 21 million total, consumers may be unwilling to purchase them at such high prices. This could have adverse affects on the coins’ value, but on the other hand, the exclusivity of the commodity may cause people to be even more interested in acquiring the currency and cause its value to increase considerably.

What happens if Bitcoins become so valuable that they’re able to back legitimate government currencies?  How could this shift power and wealth to the people who are hoarding Bitcoins?  I’m not saying it will happen, but we must think about the possibilities in this technology-driven society. The major takeaway from the speculation is that this currency is risky and can be exploited easily. Bitcoins are a risky investment and there are no equivalent insurance protections to those at traditional banks. Possibly worse, there are no standard cybersecurity protections from hackers when dealing with Bitcoin. Due to the currency’s anonymity, it is very hard to track where a particular coin has gone once it’s taken from a digital wallet. This anonymity leads us into the darker, seedier side of Bitcoin.

Because of the anonymity and absence of government regulation, Bitcoin is being used as a de facto payment to fund illegal weapons and drug trades on the black market. The most well known underground internet-based drug ring, Silk Road, had more than one million users and was in operation for two and a half years. Silk Road allowed users to buy any kind of illegal drug they desired and have it shipped directly to their home. Think eBay for drug addicts and their suppliers. Silk Road was also good for child pornography and illegal weapons sales.

In September 2013, after years of investigation by the FBI, Silk Road was shut down and its engineer, Ross Ulbrict, was arrested after facilitating 1.2 million transactions. These transactions accounted for 9.5 million Bitcoins — valued at a whopping $1.2 billion — and earned Ulbrict about $80 million. Unfortunately for him, all of his Bitcoins, and a majority of those held by Silk Road users, were seized by the FBI, making the government agency’s digital wallet the largest in the world.

Although the FBI should be excited about a job well done, we must remember that it took them two and half years to shut down Silk Road, and only a month for Silk Road 2.0 to get up and running.  If you go to the site, the operators boast how they’re morally superior to the original Silk Road since they no longer provide child pornography or facilitate the sale of illegal weapons. No… I’m not joking. The site also talks about newly emerging competition with other underground websites that were created to fill the void Silk Road left. The problem is getting worse and the operators have learned from the mistakes of previous site operators. They’re even giving users instructions on how to better protect themselves and keep their identities from being detected.

The only positive in this situation is that these people are so clearly lacking significant moral fiber, that every few weeks the site creators steal  all of their users’ Bitcoins, or they are hacked and the site’s Bitcoins are stolen. Unbelievable. I think it’s kind of funny that these drug dealers are being robbed, but at the same time, we have no idea what kind of criminal mind has the ability to steal from other criminals. That’s when it gets scary. We can only hope that these kinds of underground sites will cause so much uncertainty that they self destruct. Until then, we have an unregulated digital currency that can be exchanged for real money, and is contributing to an increased amount of cyber thievery and crime in America and abroad.

—

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

 Featured image courtesy of [Zach Copley via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Seedy Side of Bitcoin appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever woken up after a night of drinks and fun, reached for your phone, and were mortified by some of the messages and emails you don’t remember sending?  If you have a phone and are at least twenty-one years old, it’s safe to assume this has happened to you at least once.  After recalling some of my own less than flattering moments, my mind shifts to one of my favorite television shows, GIRLS.

While I was catching up on the show I remembered an amazing invention one of the characters created. Last season Marnie’s ex-boyfriend Charlie, distraught over their breakup, couldn’t resist the urge to drunk dial her. Luckily he happened to be an app developer, so he created one for his phone that wouldn’t allow him to dial his ex while drinking.

I remember watching the episode and thinking, “if only it were real.” Although my days of partying and waking up to embarrassing messages are behind me, I did a bit of research and found out that there actually are apps that can prevent us from drunk dialing.

Drunk Dial No! allows its users to input contact information prior to drinking, and disable their ability to contact the designated person until the following day. This may seem silly to some, but I’m sure this technology has prevented many people from embarrassing themselves in front of exes, from giving their bosses a piece of their mind, and from sending inappropriate messages to mom when they really meant to text Tom. Even if this app isn’t appealing to the masses, we can all agree that this technology prevents people from making bad decisions.

While drunk dialing, messaging, and emailing are potentially embarrassing, there are fewer things more devastating than the loss of lives as a result of a drunk driver. Drunk driving is one hundred percent avoidable; however, when senses are impaired and the beer muscles are on, many people don’t realize the danger they are to themselves and others while driving. In 2011 alcohol related driving fatalities had declined about 69 percent since 1982. The improvements can be credited to increased penalties for driving under the influence as well as more attention focused on informing the public of its dangers. According to a study by the Century Council, 66 percent of people killed in alcohol-related car accidents were drivers. Considering these statistics, it makes sense to support alcohol-sensor technology with laws to further reduce the amount of drunk driving offenses. Just like Drunk Dial No!, these technologies would prevent bad decisions from being made in the first place, as opposed to dealing with the consequences of bad decisions.

Several States have adopted legislation that requires individuals convicted of a DUI to have alcohol-sensor devices, known as interlock systems, installed into their cars. These devices require drivers to take a Breathalyzer test before being able to operate their vehicle. In fact, a company known as Smart Start boasts more than 200,000 alcohol-sensor installations, from which there have been more than 700 million alcohol-free starts, as well as the prevention of more than seven million alcohol starts.

In 2011 Senators Tom Udall and Bob Corker introduced the ROADS SAFE Act which would have authorized $12 million for five years toward the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Driver Alcohol Detection System for Safety program. According to the legislation, the funds would be used to explore the feasibility of vehicle interlock systems and some of the policy challenges they may face in Congress. Unfortunately, this bill, which I believe would be a step in the right direction, was lost in committee and never received the attention it deserved.

The technology to save lives exists, and car manufacturers could choose to equip cars with it. However,  I have not found any information on companies considering installing the technology, and  I find it highly unlikely that it will happen without government regulation.
—
Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Robert Lachenman for the Work Projects Administration Federal Art Project via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Alcohol Apps Can Save Your Rep & Your Life appeared first on Law Street.

A new idea is being proposed that could dramatically change education requirements in United States public schools. In New Mexico, State Senator Jacob Canderlaria, a democrat, has proposed a bill that would allow computer programming to count towards student’s foreign language requirements. Candelaria claims this measure would help promote the teaching of computer coding since its inclusion in a school’s curriculum would be funded by the state. Schools would still be able to choose which languages they offer to their students, as they currently do, but also would provide any computer programming language to students as an alternative to a traditional foreign language. New Mexico is not alone in offering this intriguing suggestion; Kentucky has had a similar bill mentioned in its own state legislature. State Senator David Givens, a republican, sponsored the Kentucky bill, and stated that the measure would make it easier for students to begin studying computer science.

It is true that state sponsorship of computer programming classes could have many benefits. The salaries for computer programming jobs are much higher than the national average, and students pursuing computer science could expect to receive a good income. In addition, there is evidently a greater need for understanding computer code in this digital age, and incentivizing early learning of computer programming could boost the number of college students who choose to major in the field. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that in 2010, only 2.4 percent of graduates received degrees related to computer science. With a low number of college graduates receiving education in this lucrative field of study, it is evident that the nation could benefit from some kind of incentive for schools to teach computer programming.

But is the answer to increasing the computer programming skills of students to count them as foreign language classes? Deeming computer programming as a foreign language would have negative implications: the measure would hurt the already struggling foreign language program in the United States when the need for fluency in languages other than English has only increased.

There are a multitude of reasons why learning foreign languages is extremely important.  As globalization increasingly links countries together in business, foreign relations, trade and other areas, knowledge of other languages can be the deciding factor when choosing candidates for higher level jobs. In addition, the United States is already way behind other countries in terms of the percentage of their population who understand multiple languages. According to data from 2010, while 53 percent of Europeans know at least one other language besides their native tongue, just 18 percent of Americans speak an additional language. Most European schools begin instructing their pupils in different languages in elementary school, while only a third of US elementary schools include this vital component of education. This is especially troubling as studies have shown that people are better able to master languages when they start at young ages.

And yet, foreign language education was among the budget cuts made in 2012. The Department of Education had bequeathed 27 million dollars in foreign language education funding before the program was cut in the budget deal. Adding computer programming to the list of ‘languages’ a school offers would only further detract from the weakened language programs. If the United States is so worried about global competitiveness, why are foreign language programs not given their needed attention and funding?

The United States is still very much in the mindset of an English centered world in which English is the lingua franca. Many Americans know that English, for the time being, remains an extremely important language that citizens of many other countries are learning. However, the comfort of only needing to speak English could be challenged as the years go by. As China continues to increase its economic power, many other countries are starting to focus on Mandarin as well as English. Additionally, other areas of the world that speak languages like Arabic, Russian, Hindi and others are becoming increasing important for business and diplomacy. And even closer to home, the English dominance of America will soon be challenged: it is projected that by 2050, Spanish will replace English as the most widely spoken language in the country. It is crucial that Americans begin to learn other languages to prepare for the future, and the first step should be to focus on strengthening foreign language programs in schools.

This is not to say that schools should not offer computer programming at all. There are obviously many benefits to having tech savvy students, and computer programming should be included in the push to promote STEM education. But foreign languages should not be deemphasized to promote computer coding. It is true that not all students would take the option of switch to a computer programming language, but offering a choice between the two only weakens foreign language education and would deplete the attention and resources devoted to traditional languages learning. The US is already very behind in the amount of students who learn multiple languages, and computer programming as an alternative could decrease the percentages of students enrolled in languages even further.

Schools should not be opposed to finding more ways for computer programming to enter their curriculums but not at the expense of foreign language.

[Washington Post] [ABQ Journal] [NCES] [Forbes] [Language Magazine] [Huffington Post] [US News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Erre via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Computer Programming as a Foreign Language? appeared first on Law Street.

The President’s State of the Union address sounded similar to some of his previous addresses, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I mean, who can disagree with a statement like this:

“Opportunity is who we are.  And the defining project of our generation is to restore that promise. We know where to start: the best measure of opportunity is access to a good job.”  -President Obama

Yes! Access to a good job is a great measure of opportunity, but if people are unaware of the opportunities, it’s hard to believe that they exist. There are thousands of openings in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields with some of the largest growth found in information & technology. As of 2011, STEM jobs accounted for 20 percent of all U.S. jobs and this number is predicted to increase. Some advantages of STEM jobs are that they have median pay higher than the national average, unemployment rates lower than national average, and half the jobs in these fields do not require a four-year degree.

According to a Brookings Institute report, half of all STEM jobs are in manufacturing, health care, or construction industries, with installation, maintenance, and repair occupations constituting 12 percent of all STEM jobs. These jobs are given to workers with qualified certificates or associate’s degrees, workforce training, vocational training, or community college education. These particular STEM areas are a great place to start for people who are unemployed and unable to commit to completing a four-year degree. Yes, obtaining a STEM job requires additional training and/or education, but that is the direction in which the job market has moved for nearly every field. Our options are to accept this fact, or stick our heads in the sand and see what comes of it.

“We know that the nation that goes all in on innovation today will own the global economy tomorrow. This is an edge America cannot surrender.”  – President Obama

For high school and college students, I want to tell you that technology is your friend. I’m sure you’re probably tweeting the link to my post and talking about it over Snapchat, but seriously, if you’re not considering a professional career in IT, you should really think about it. Comparatively, the unemployment rate for tech professionals in 2013 averaged 3.5 percent while the national unemployment rate was more than double that, at 7.4 percent.

According to eWeek, 54,300 new jobs were created in 2013 in the tech consulting field. These jobs include software developers, web developers, database administrators, programmers, and more.   Also, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, since July 2013, 474,800 employees voluntarily left their jobs each month. Yes you read that correctly, they voluntarily left their jobs. Some may have retired, others moved to new positions, and some could have left to start their own tech businesses. Whatever the case, they left voluntarily, and with each person that leaves, a new person has to fill that position. Between higher job turnover, and reports that companies plan to create new jobs by significant numbers,  high school and college students should investigate these upcoming opportunities. You can start by looking here at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook for Computer and IT Occupations.

“Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C. are making big strides in preparing students with skills for the new economy – problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, and math.” – President Obama

We can’t retreat from the notion that this new economy is managed by technology and requires a more skilled and sophisticated labor force. Technology has advanced so quickly that many adults feel ill prepared for the current job market. With that said, it would be unwise to risk the future of America’s children by continuing with the same education practices that have been unsuccessful in preparing a technology-based labor force. A first step could be the passage of the STEM Gateways Act. This Act would increase funding to schools through grants for the purpose of encouraging interest and motivating engagement in STEM fields, supporting workforce training and career preparation in STEM fields, and supporting classroom success in STEM disciplines at the elementary or secondary school levels. These are the kinds of policies the President was encouraging in his State of the Union Address and STEM Gateways is the kind of policy I would like to see.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy.  Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community.  In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football!

Featured image courtesy of [Pete Souza via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SOTU: Sizeable Opportunities in Technology Unfilled appeared first on Law Street.

I was watching television recently when I saw an awesome AT&T commercial that summed up the greatness that is technology. Take a look.

The dad literally turned off all the appliances and locked the door with a press of a button on his smartphone. Mind… Blown… I’m not easily impressed, but after seeing this I had to know more. How could all of these different things be turned off remotely with one app? Are they connected to the internet? What did I just see?

After some research, I found out that everything in that mind-blowing commercial will probably be common in about seven years. Household appliances like toasters, refrigerators, ovens, and coffee pots are being enabled to communicate with each other and with your applications — technology referred to as IoT, or the Internet of Things. We know about smart TVs, but say hello to smart thermostats. These devices have the ability to connect wirelessly via router signals, and some can even connect to the internet on their own. Not only that, but these appliances are able to connect, control, and share resources over different operating systems. This is so cool that even Google wants a piece of the action — which explains their $3.2 billion purchase of Nest, creator of smart thermostats and smoke alarms.

Last year 10 billion of these devices were connected to the internet, and there are estimates that up to 212 billion devices will be connected by 2020. The Internet of Things is slated to be an $8.9 trillion market by 2020, and will include many more things than just household devices. State, local, and federal governments are preparing to expand on these kinds of technologies and use them to create entire smart cities, as well as tech-supported infrastructure and energy sources such as wind turbines. These will all fall under the category of IoT and therefore could have some of the same vulnerabilities.

Proofpoint, a new tech security firm, has found evidence that smart appliances have the ability to be cyberattacked. In a study conducted from December 23, 2013 to January 6, 2014, Proofpoint found that more than 100,000 common appliances like multimedia centers, TVs, routers, and refrigerators were able to send 750,000 malicious emails in bursts of 100,000, three times a day. While some people may not be frightened by the prospect of their toaster sending out spam, we should note that this implies a bigger problem.

Proofpoint was not the first entity to point out these security issues, as there have been reports dating back to 2009 of concerns with the ability to hack routers. However, Proofpoint is the first to show supporting evidence that these security breaches can, will, and have happened to appliances. So what is happening? First, these devices are mass produced without much antivirus software to protect against security breaches. Because the devices have internet connectivity, hackers are able to exploit some of the known software vulnerabilities of the devices and apps that are used to control them. By exploiting these vulnerabilities, these devices become spam-sending machines capable of conducting denial of service attacks used to steal usernames and passwords. Another problem is that hackers may gain the ability to control the functions of the devices. What’s even more frightening is that many consumers won’t even know their networks and devices have been compromised.

The reason these vulnerabilities have not been dealt with is the lack of security standards for these gadgets. Not only have companies not produced universal security standards, there has been no government intervention to set security standards. With technology changing so rapidly, government officials have not been able to keep up with the changes and pass laws accordingly. Until such time as these standards are created, either by companies or by the government, we’re on our own folks.

On the bright side, I’m sure companies don’t want their products to be responsible for spreading viruses and spamming people. For that reason, I believe companies will develop more robust antivirus software as smart appliances become more common. However, if you already have one of these devices, you may want to take some precautions to protect them. Some suggestions are to screen your internet connections and bar devices that aren’t email servers from being able to send email. Another suggestion is to encrypt your devices. While my mind is still completely blown by the commercial I saw, I think that’s where I’ll let my interest pique…for now.

—

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy.  Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community.  In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football!

Featured image courtesy of [James Nash via Flickr]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Your Toaster Just Spam Me? appeared first on Law Street.

Good afternoon, lovelies! How many of you are having a snow day today? Lucky bastards.

Well, while you’re lounging around on your couch, sipping hot cocoa in your pajamas, let me just ask you one thing: did you remember to recharge your bra this morning? Seriously bitches. This is a real thing.

Microsoft came out with a snazzy little tech gadget for ladies — a bra that prevents women from getting fat.

Apparently, the battery-powered boob-sling is equipped with removable sensors that monitor heart and skin activity. Based on those readings, the bra is supposed to be able to know what emotional state a woman is in. Why? To predict when she’s likely to start stress-eating.

When it predicts an impending ice cream binge, the bra sends an alert to your smart phone, which then shames the shit out of you and tells you NOT TO GO TO THE FRIDGE. Leave the kitchen now, and nobody gets hurt.

Folks, I can’t. Could this be any more blatantly sexist?

First of all, let’s stop with the paternalism, mmkay? I don’t need an electronic bra and a smart phone app to tell me when I’m feeling stressed and I want a cookie.

I am fully aware that I’m stressed and I want the cookie. (Or all of the cookies, but whatever.) Contrary to popular belief, women do actually have these things called brains. So, no, we don’t need third-party technology to explain our thoughts and emotions to us. We’re fully capable of recognizing them on our own.

Second of all, why is it so important for women to police their eating habits? I don’t see any electronic boxer briefs for the boys, telling them to quit it with the brownies already.

I’ll tell you why. Because the imperative for women to be always thin, all the time, is a product of sexist bullshit. As Naomi Wolf put it so clearly back in 1991 with her bestseller, The Beauty Myth, our society isn’t obsessed with tiny waistlines because it’s a sign of female beauty — rather, it’s a sign of female obedience.

Do as you’re told, ladies.

Because, what do we to women who are successful, who have some kind of power in the world? We fixate on their bodies to knock them down a few pegs. You made a hit album, but are you thin? You were elected Senator, but are you thin? You cured cancer, but are you thin? It’s a constant refrain that gets echoed every time a woman does anything worth noting. Because if she’s not thin, she clearly isn’t worthy of any praise, public attention, or social clout.

And it doesn’t stop there. It’s in our homes, in our everyday lives. The obsession with female thinness isn’t constrained by the public eye. Water cooler chat revolves around what diet all of us are on this week. A visit with the in-laws turns into a calorie-saving recipe swap.

This is my personal favorite way to keep off the pounds. SLAP THE CALORIES OFF THE PASTA. Fucking genius.

The fixation on eliminating excess body fat is all-consuming. We’re never allowed to step away from it. Women are even encouraged to lose weight while they sleep. Can’t we just, you know, SLEEP while we sleep? This is crazy.

Now, all you feminist skeptics — it’s true that men face scrutiny about their bodies. It’s true that people of all genders are pressured to aspire to impossible physical ideals.

Literally impossible. If JLaw isn’t even up to snuff, what hope is there for the rest of us Earthlings?

But. A fat man is not a worthless man. A guy with a beer gut can still get promoted, get laid, and largely be left in peace. But a woman with a belly? Apparently, she’s not even worthy of life. Actual life. As in, not being dead.

Think I’m exaggerating? Ask Caitlin Seida. A photo of her merely existing in her not-a-size-two body went viral, inspiring internet trolls to post comments like the following: “What a waste of space;” “Heifers like her should be put down;” and advising her to commit suicide in order to “spare everyone’s eyes.”

The lovely Caitlin Seida, having an awesome time on Halloween. I think she makes an epic Lara Croft, don’t you?

This is a real thing. In our culture, fat men are regularly given a free pass. But fat women? They’re told that they should die. If that’s not a patriarchal lesson in lady obedience training, I don’t know what is.

This is why Microsoft designed a bra that would keep women from overeating, but failed to invent male-targeted boxer briefs to do the same thing. Because in 2013, a woman’s worth is still very much tied up in how skinny — and submissive — she is.

Well, guess what Microsoft? We’re over it. We’re not all a size two. Sometimes we’re going to reach for the brownies. And that’s OK. We don’t need your engineers to invent apps to mansplain away our will to eat.

And besides, you’re so unoriginal. Is an electronic boob carrier the only thing you can come up with to target tech to women? Because if it is, I think you need to hire some better creative talent. (Don’t try to poach from Twitter, though — the tweeting bra they’re developing proves they’re not doing any better.)

So what do you think, folks? Would you wear a bra that told you to stop eating? Let’s start an open thread about our boobs. (Rush Limbaugh says thank you.)

—

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Tweet her @HannahRWinsten.

Featured image courtesy of [Gerard Stolk via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Fat-Shaming Bra Is Really Sexist and Terrible appeared first on Law Street.

So…I hate Sprint. The service is unreliable, slow, and (appropriately) the laughing stock of networks — unless you’re in a room with a Cricket or T-Mobile user. But it’s cheap and I’m a recent graduate so I take what I can afford. I’ve thought about switching from Sprint to Verizon quite a few times and lucky for #TeamiPhone, I can do this with a simple phone call (plus maybe a shitty termination fee) and voila!

But what if you have a phone that isn’t carried by the network you wish to join? Well, then you’re screwed. But even if you have a tech-savvy friend who can ‘hook it up’ by unlocking your phone — even if your contract has ended — he or she can face criminal penalties.  Last year, the Library of Congress announced that utilizing software to bypass a carrier’s network limitations is a copyright violation. This ruling centered on the notion that “unlocking” a cellphone requires the alteration of software so that it may be accessible to other wireless companies. The cellular providers asserted that locking cell phones is part of its business practices. CTIA, the Wireless Association that includes cellular networks such as AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon, contended that phones have been traditionally locked as an integral aspect of the carriers’ business models.  So, essentially, the carrier pays a fee to the cell phone’s creator (think Apple and Nokia) and the carrier receives a promise from the creator to utilize that particular carrier as its premier network. But who pays for these wireless barriers in the end? We do.

If we can use our cellphones on any network, then service providers would be forced to lower their prices because of an increase in competition. But in all fairness, there is a possibility that switching from one network to another could produce technical difficulties. A phone may be only partially functional on certain networks because not all carriers’ technology is compatible with that of another. However, if carriers are forced to allow the unlocking of phones, the barriers between each entity will undoubtedly be lowered because they’ll have to adapt to the change in law.

This new agreement requires mobile carriers to notify consumers that they may legally unlock phones once their contracts are up. Let’s throw one back for the increase in transparency among these mobile carriers. And honestly, can’t you use the money? Not only will we be exposed to cheaper service rates but we’ll also able to resell our old phones more easily because there will be less concern with network compatibility.

So start digging up those old Blackberrys and Razors — we’ve got a bigger market and more ways to bustle the hustle in 2014.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Get in touch with Gena via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Tiz via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Cellphone Come Up: How Selling Your Cell Can Pay Your Rent appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to adjudicate the highly contested issue of which software innovations may be eligible for patent protection. The impact of this case will be decisive in determining the extent that a technology company can utilize an aspect of another’s software without being subjected to a patent infringement suit. At the same time, the decision may make it easier to challenge a patent for want of validity without having to sort through the particulars the patent includes.

Alice Corporation vs. CLS Bank is the case that has motivated the Supreme Court to sift through this heavily-weighted issue. Briefly, the case involves a company that held software patents covering methods of conducting online financial dealings. CLS Bank contended that the patent was invalid for lack of patentable subject matter, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed. But why? Well that was the issue — they didn’t exactly know, releasing six different opinions, none of which was supported by the majority. In fact, another recent case involving the same question of patentable software was determined on a basis that was unclear as well.

Pushed by companies such as Google, JP Morgan, and Netflix that contend that patent standards are too lenient and vague, the courts are faced with a question that will decide the future of technological innovation. To be eligible for patent protection, an invention cannot be obvious or merely an abstract idea. The policy behind this is to preclude a patent holder from claiming an entire innovative field. Instead the application of an abstract idea to a certain process or structure may be patent eligible.

Stick with me. The crux of this issue is determining guidelines for what types of methods meet the patent eligibility standard, right? But what I’m confused about is why it makes any difference if a method is embodied in a machine or tangible article versus being written on computer software. A computer is indeed a structure (as required by the seminal case, Bilksi) and the software is intended to carry out the novel process. Whether a method is carried out by software should not be decisive in determining whether it is patent eligible. It shouldn’t be a factor for consideration. Software can most certainly envelope novel processes without monopolizing an entire concept, as seems to be the concern of anti-patentable-software advocates. For example, a software that writes a method for connecting Garage Band data to Guitar Hero by utilizing the music data created in Garage Band to formulate different levels in the Guitar Hero video game should be allowed to gain patent protection even though it may involve computer algorithms. For argument’s sake, it’s a non-obvious process that was executed through a machine — a computer. Why should it matter if the process was made to occur through some tangible box connecting your computer to your PlayStation? Why should this factor grant one innovator patent protection and not another?

The other side of this coin is no less convoluted. Arguing that software may simply cover a thought process or computation, companies such as Microsoft are asserting that software patents may stifle innovation. They claim that the patentability of these computer-executed methods may open the gateway for patent applicants claiming the rights to innovative tools that may be useful to a category of inventions. I disagree with this notion for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, the Patent and Trademark office considers whether a process transforms the thing through which it is employed to determine patent eligibility of a method as well. Wouldn’t employing a software on a computer undoubtedly transform it? A computer with iOS is vastly different from one with Windows, and, thus, a computer with any software added to it has been transformed because it is then a different piece of machinery facilitating different tasks.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in March or April and release a decision by July of 2014.

Gena.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Computer Software Patents: To Be or Not to Be Eligible for Protection? appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s talk toys. In the trade dress community, there appears to be some naughtiness afoot. Here’s the nitty-gritty on trade dress: it’s the law covering a product’s shape, color, design, texture, and even how it’s packaged and presented. If a competitor makes a product that is sufficiently similar to these attributes of another product so as to cause consumer confusion — BAM! Trade dress infringement.

Fuhu Inc., a company that specializes in child technology, is bringing suit against IdeaUSA for infringing on the trade dress of its tablets. The California-based company claims that IdeaUSA mimicked the “butterfly shape” of Fuhu’s “Nabi” tablet for their similar product, IdeaPlay. As further indication of the butterfly theme, Fuhu named their tablet Nabi because it means butterfly in Korean. So clearly, the butterfly-idea-shape-thing was taken, but did that stop IdeaUSA?

Due to licensing formalities, I can’t reproduce images of the two tablets, but click these two links for the visual –> the Nabi tablet and the IdeaPlay.  By utilizing soft edges and elongated corners, Fuhu created a product that contains the technology to which our generation’s children should be exposed, with their trademarked “Drop Safe” bumper to protect the tablet from realistic experiences. The design is brilliant. Easy to grasp. Resistant to shatter. However, this brilliance gave the infringing version equal shine because they are the SAME physical product.

Fuhu claims that consumers will likely be confused as to the source of IdeaPlay because of the very apparent similarities between the two products. Well, of course. YES. The IdeaPlay is nothing short of a knockoff. It isn’t difficult to grasp why IdeaUSA would want to copy (notwithstanding the fact that it’s illegal) the exact makeup of Fuhu’s kiddie tablet. The Nabi has nabbed more than $118 million in revenue, amounting to a glorious growth of 42,148% in just three years. (WHY DIDN’T I CREATE THIS?!) I say all of this to make the following point: to win a trade dress case, the makeup of your product needs to be distinct or well known by the public. The cute round edges of this children’s tablet are what make it work, and this design is clearly favored by consumers.

While the Nabi tablet ranges from $100 for the kindergarten version to $290 for the preteens-early-adolescents rendition, IdeaPlay is currently selling on Amazon for a solid $129. Welp. I know which gift would be bought in my household this Christmas season. And for a product that looks almost identical to its legitimate, though more pricey, counterpart? Why not? From an intellectual property standpoint, this is deliberate theft. Fuhu is rightfully seeking punitive damages here. IdeaUSA intentionally sought to capitalize off of the financial gain generated by the Nabi. Fuhu’s design was placed on the market first. The only visible difference between the two products is that the IdeaPlay has its camera placed on the boundary of the tablet, as opposed to being affixed to the touch screen like the Nabi.

This brings me back to the Victoria’s Secret case I covered a few weeks ago. There is the same blatant intellectual property theft occurring in both cases. Which brings me to my next question -why are businesses disregarding trademark law? Definitely a topic worthy of some coverage. It’s starting to seem as though the Lanham Act carries no weight, or at least not enough to deter competitors from swiping phrases and designs every week.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [LadyDragonflyCC – >;< via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trade Dress Naughtiness: Why Some of Santa’s Elves May Not Make ‘The List’ appeared first on Law Street.

You may think that technological advances ensure a more secure future but think again, as technology evolves, ability to organize cyber attacks evolves in tandem.

This is most notably seen in the Visa & Mastercard Heist  in which people hacked both Visa and Mastercard, stealing 45 million dollars remotely in only hours.This cyber attacked happened around the world, all by the hands of computer criminals manipulating financial information. In turn, this information was used to loot the automated teller machines in major cities such as New York.

But as horrible as this may be, technology offers the ability to ensure security and privacy (If only phone providers could get behind the idea).

It may have not happened to you personally, but over the fiscal year of 2012, over 1.6 million smart phones were stolen. 

District attorney, George Gascón of San Francisco wants to fix this. In fact, phone manufacturers want to solve this problem as well. Unfortunately, cellular providers do not.

Gascón hopes to fix this rampant problem by implementing a kill switch into smart phones. This would be accomplished through a “kill switch” that would terminate smart phones if they were reported as stolen. Gascón is suspicious of the wireless carriers’ motives for rejecting the kill switch, claiming “there were email conversations between Samsung and the kill-switch developer, saying that the carriers were concerned about losing business”.

 Currently, many smart phones enable the option to wipe the memory of the phone if a perpetrator attempts to enter the phone. Unfortunately, without the backing of major cellular providers, these phones are still operable.This brings up the question—should cellular providers offer the option of a kill switch.

Yeah, why not? As technology becomes more penetrable, counter tactics must be implemented to secure the consumers regardless of economic motive. This leads to the follow up question—why don’t cellular companies implement the kill switch?

Although, there has not been an official reason, its pretty obvious why– its a terminate button. What business model would intentional provide consumers an option to terminate their service?  Providers say they will look into it but I wouldn’t get too excited. Either way, I wouldn’t expect a kill switch unless you work for the NSA.

In fact, the kill switch option may generate more revenue for some companies who take the initial step.

Bottom line, as privacy becomes persistently limited, cellular providers eventually should change their policies to appease the consumers.

[Huffingtonpost] [NY Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Stahlkocher via Wikipedia]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Kill the “Kill Switch” appeared first on Law Street.

Three-dimensional printing has become a new hot tech trend in recent years. 3-D printers build things through an additive process—building layer after layer of an item to make it solid. While commercial use is becoming more of a possibility, for the most part, engineers and designers usually use 3-D printing to create prototypes for significantly larger designs.

You can make pretty much anything with 3-D printers, including gun parts. There are groups are quite active in their attempt to print guns. A company based out of Texas called Defense Distributed, makes AR-15 lower receivers, which house most of the mechanics. At its most basic, the receiver is what makes a gun operate, and it is the part that can be illegal to sell. Other gun parts, such as barrels or handles, are not controlled, and be can be easily bought online. A lesser focus of the group is printing magazines and magazine clips for their manufactured guns. Defense Distributed’s mission statement is:

To defend the civil liberty of popular access to arms as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, through facilitating global access to, and the collaborative production of, information and knowledge related to the 3D printing of arms; and to publish and distribute, at no cost to the public, such information and knowledge in promotion of the public interest.

 3-D guns, or at least, gun parts, are most likely going to part of the future. Private citizens aren’t the only ones playing around with this kind of technology. The ATF has made and built a functioning 3-D gun nicknamed, “The Liberator.” This gun does not contain any metal parts or serial numbers.

In reality, the technology is still too new, and still too expensive for the everyday consumer. But last week, one city took action to try to limit potential future impact. Philadelphia’s city council passed a law last week banning anyone without a gun license from making or using a 3-D printed gun. The law passed unanimously, and has since been slammed as reactionary and preemptive. But one of the reasons for Philadelphia’s quick move is that a federal law that bans firearms that cannot be detected by a metal detector expires next month.

Technically this law will not be official until Philadelphia’s mayor, Mayor Michael Nutter, signs it. Other cities and states are considering similar legislation, such as New York, California, and Washington DC. The problem is that if these 3-D guns actually become popular and useful, this legislation will probably have fairly little effect. If 3-D printers become regular facets in consumer homes, which some advocates predict they will because of their ability to create many needed household items, producing your own gun could become incredibly easy. The plans for these guns or gun parts, once perfected, could be shared over the Internet as easily as pirating music.

This is another tricky intersection between law and technology. For once, it seems like the law may have overtaken the technology—critics are right in saying this law might be a bit preemptive. But this technology can still be incredibly dangerous once it is perfected, and a larger discussion on how to control the spread will be warranted.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Kissel via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Need a Gun? Just Print One Out appeared first on Law Street.

Technology is becoming increasingly invasive awesome-sauce with developments such as Android allowing you to scan your face and Apple requesting that you use your fingerprint just to unlock your phone. I don’t know how the possibility of a tattooed tracking device could have evaded my imagination. Enter Google’s Motorola Mobility neck tattoo: a mini microphone and lie detector that can be embedded in your skin with a tattooing device.

Last week, Motorola Mobility filed a patent application with the Patent and Trademark Office for this new technological advent. Let’s call it the ‘G-too.’ (Call me if you’re interested in this name, Google. It would only cost you the accumulation of my student loans. You’re welcome.) The primary purpose of the G-too is to produce higher sound quality in mobile phone calls by giving consumers the option of activating the neck tattoo as a microphone. The mic could also be used to command the phone with one’s voice. Sure. There’s no doubt in my mind that the amount of background noise and disruptions during calls could dramatically be reduced, but when has technology surpassed personal boundaries? Maybe a better question is, do people even have personal boundaries anymore?

The actual name of the patent is “Coupling an Electronic Skin Tattoo to a Mobile Communication Device.” The next logical question here is, how would you charge the batteries? Well, fret no more. The patent application explains that the device may “employ solar panel technology, capacitive technology, nanotechnology or electro-mechanical technology.” Yea, I have no idea what “capacitive technology” is either, but it sure does sound a lot better than watching people lean up against outlets trying to juice up their G-toos. Or does it? The visual alone has given me the utmost joy.

Back to this lie detector feature. The tattoo would also be able to identify fluctuations in skin responses to determine if someone is lying based on their level of nervousness/confidence. Why on Earth would anyone want a tattooed indicator of their dishonest mishaps? I’m guilty of telling a few white lies here and there, and I’m positive I don’t need a spotlight and siren to tell the world.

The patent applicant also offers a collar that could be worn around your neck if you don’t feel comfortable with the idea of the tattoo. But I mean…if you want to be tech-savvy badly enough to wear a collar, you really might as well ‘be cool’ about it and go balls-to-the-wall with the tattoo.

No one likes someone who does something half-assed.

 Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [flyingpurplemonkeys via Wikipedia]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google’s Neck Tattoo: The Ink That Makes You Think appeared first on Law Street.

As technological advances make our lives easier, will our laws need to change to keep up with the times? That is the question that tech fans are asking after a run-in between a California woman named Cecelia Abadie and the police. Abadie was wearing one of the newest innovations in tech trends: Google Glass.

The idea behind Google Glass is simple. It’s sort of like a smart phone, but completely hands-free, and it communicates with the wearer through motions and voice commands. While Google Glass currently cannot be worn in lieu of prescription glasses, developers are hoping to add an ability to contain a prescription in coming years. Applications available on Google Glass include video capture and streaming, Google Maps, Gmail, Evernote, and The New York Times, among others. More applications are expected to be released as the technology becomes more mainstream and affordable.

Currently, Google Glass is not fully available the public, but for those in the tech industry, such as testers or developers, an “Explorer Addition” is available for $1,500.

Abadie, 44, from Temecula, California, was driving down a San Diego Highway when she was pulled over for speeding. While writing up her ticket, the officer noticed that she was wearing Google Glass and cited her for distracted driving. California Vehicle Code 27602 states that it is illegal to, “”drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.” According to California law, the mandatory minimum fine is $162.

Abadie claims that the glasses were turned off at the time of her arrest. The cop cited her because the monitor was in her view and because Google Glass has a small square in the top right corner that could block a person’s view. After returning home, she posted a photo of the ticket she received to some of her online profiles. Much of the feedback that she received encouraged her to take the ticket to court and fight it. She says she believes that whether or not the ticket gets upheld depends on the judge’s feelings towards technology. She stated, “It’s all in how a judge will interpret it and I suspect their love or hate and understanding of the technology might help or the opposite.”

It seems clear that many of the functions of Google Glass—such as video streaming and web browsing, fall firmly into the category of distracted driving. But there’s also some grey area with Google Glass. Google Glass does contain the potential for navigation software. That type of software, such as a hands-free GPS device, is usually exempted from distracted driving laws. Whether or not Google Glass is ever used for that kind of purpose could change whether or not it is considered distracted driving. However, that raises another important issue: how would officers be able to tell if someone they pull over is using Google Glass for navigation, or for something else?

It’s important to note that Google Glass has presented itself as a program to be used while driving. In the manual, it states that Glass can provide directions, whether “whether you’re on a bike, in a car, taking the subway, or going by foot.” However, the Glass FAQ does also point out that many states have laws preventing the use of such technology while driving. Some states have introduced legislation that specifically prevents the type of technology that Glass uses. West Virginia and Arizona specifically have created amendments that forbid drivers from “using a wearable computer with head mounted display.”

Technology often is ahead of law. I highly doubt that Google Glass will become a norm the way that using a GPS while driving has, but as this new technology develops so quickly, it may become difficult for law enforcement to keep pace. That being said, until Google Glass’s place within driving law becomes regularly accepted, intrepid tech-fans who are trying them out should assume that if they get caught driving while wearing Glass, they will pay the price.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Glasses: a Whole New Level of Distracted Driving appeared first on Law Street.

What is really going on in the patent world these days?  Last week I told you about the allowance of Apple’s ban on Samsung’s imports of infringing products. The Obama administration proclaimed Samsung ban bad, Apple ban good. And the American Gods were pleased. But this week, there seems to be a different narrative in the loop.

Nokia, the maker of my first flirtation device, doesn’t seem to be having the same luck as Apple these days. InterDigital, a company that states they are in the market of developing and licensing wireless technology, brought a patent infringement suit against Nokia for the use of certain mobile phone technology. The International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in Interdigital’s favor, and Nokia appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. And here’s where it gets juicy: among the arguments presented, Nokia asserts that the ITC shouldn’t even have jurisdiction in this case.

Nokia contends that the ITC should not hear a case if the company’s business is solely to patent troll. I agree! The ITC can prevent the import of products that infringe on a patent to the detriment of a U.S. business. But is patent trolling conducting business in the US?  I think not. The ITC is allowing itself to become a shopping mall for these patent mongrels that just acquire patents with the sole purpose of litigation them and collecting royalties. Of course, InterDigital contested this label by stating that they actually research and develop patents versus just buying them to defend or sell the rights. Some of our favorite companies – Amazon, Hewlett Packard, and Red Hat – filed briefs against InterDigital with supporting evidence to the contrary. But ultimately, the whole discussion proved to be futile as the ITC determined that a business with the purpose of patent collection is still a “US business” and, thus, may be protected by import bans imposed by the ITC.

Here’s what really chaps my cheeks: the purpose of the ITC is to “treat information quality as integral to its development, including creation.”  How are they furthering this purpose when they’re hindering innovation and promoting the procurement of patents, not as a means to protect creation but as a way to obtain licensing fees?  Why should InterDigital be able to stop the import of certain 3G devices when they aren’t even making any themselves?

Given our current economic deficit, you’d think we would refrain from sustaining unfair trade practices against our own businesses.  I’m not following the logic behind the rejection of this case when it’s an issue that so conspicuously needs further discussion.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [ngader via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Patent Trolls: Monsters vs. America appeared first on Law Street.

Apple recently requested an import ban against a few of Samsung’s products, including their smartphones and tablets. I doubt that this would come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Apple’s growing monopoly on mobile devices. But coming from a true Apple junkie, I cannot say that I stand by their grand scheme to overtake the technology market based on their keen ability to appeal to aesthetics.

The International Trade Commission had determined that Samsung violated two of Apple’s patents: one pertaining to the functionality of touch screen capability and another relating to headphone recognition.  The Korean company requested the ban be overturned on public policy grounds, which I agree is a suitable argument to make judging by the tit-for-tat activity that has been arisen between the two companies. But the kicker is, the Obama administration has decided that they will uphold this ban, resulting in a huge win for Apple.

Now, at first look, you may think ‘OK, what’s the problem?’ It is abnormal for the President to overturn the ITC’s decisions. And it’s worth noting that the ban will largely affect Samsung’s older products, and thus, will not result in a significant impact on the availability of Samsung’s current products.  So then why is Samsung arching its back over this decision if its newer products aren’t to be dramatically affected?

Well…

In August, the Obama Administration vetoed the ITC’s decision to ban certain Apple products, reasoning that the ban was incorrectly restricting the importation of products that were the result of standard essential patents — patents that cover inventions that must be utilized to meet technical standards. This is rarely done. It’s bad enough for Apple to be continuously rewarded for their litigious behavior, but to reverse a decision in favor of them? It almost screams political nepotism. Following this decision, the South Korean government voiced that it was “disappointed” by this ruling.  Needless to say, this determination furthers Apple’s powerful stance in the ongoing patent battles across the tech industry.

Amongst the accusations against Samsung that were not decided in Apple’s favor was an alleged violation of a design patent regarding the overall look of the iPhone. US Trade Representative Michael Froman has explained that the decision to uphold the ban is based on “policy considerations, including the impact on consumers and competition, advice from agencies, and information from interested parties.” Oh, that doesn’t leave a generic impression on me at all. -__- If anything, policy and competition considerations should instruct fairness in the industry so that one company isn’t granted extraordinary favors on account of their economic girth and geographic residence.

The juxtaposition of the two rulings may have given rise to trade implications, such as the favoring of a company’s national origin. These assertions were even raised by Samsung in their request to overturn the ban. However, Froman has stood firm in his position that the two scenarios were factually different and that nationality was not considered in the determination. Ehhh.

Again, even as the owner of an iPhone, iPad, iTouch, and Macbook (don’t judge me, you shouldn’t judge people with addictions), I can’t support the government’s efforts to thwart competition in any industry. While Apple showcases the “cool” status symbol our subcultures so anxiously desire, no one can negate the innovative choices that Samsung has brought to the table for consumers.

Hasn’t anyone had a discussion with a techie eager to explain why Droid is better than iOS? At this rate, we may be on our way to having more limited debates if manufacturers that license Droid are having the rug yanked from beneath them.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [renatomitra via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samsung Ban Upheld: Why Apple Can’t Stop Won’t Stop appeared first on Law Street.

Mayor Bloomberg has caught a lot of heat in the past few months with his efforts regarding the large soda ban, which ultimately failed. However, he has risen from the ashes as techie superhero.

In addition to introducing free Wi-Fi hotspots around New York City, the mayor of this great city announced his plan to keep the Big Apple ahead of the curve and establish its supremacy as an innovative tech hub.

With the infamous drummer of the roots, Questlove, by his side, Mayor Bloomberg announced his plans for the Made in NY Media Center, a space where “storytellers, creative professionals and entrepreneurs across multiple disciplines…can gather and create,” pretty much whatever they want as long as it bolsters NY’s image as an innovative techie paradise.

New York has been called the “business capital of the world“, the “fashion capital of the world“, and now Mayor Bloomberg hopes it will become the “global media capital of the digital age.” Made in NY will be creating over 3,000 jobs and will be an innovative hub where ideas come to life. See for yourself.

With Questlove as Made in NY’s first “Artist in Residence”, Made in NY looks like it will begin to thrive down on 30 John Street in DUMBO. NYC is currently the second-most funded tech hub next to Silicon Valley, however NYC is a place where the possibilities are endless. With techie start-ups for new media, mobile gaming and other forward-thinking companies popping up out of the woodworks to make a name for themselves in NY, this city is becoming the place to go to turn an idea into a reality.

Made in NY promotes the film and television industries that provided much needed revenue to New York City for years, bringing in over $400 million in tax revenue. It is definitely an exciting time to be in NYC and it should be interesting to watch as the Made in NY Media Center grows and evolves.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Scott Beale via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Made In NY” – A Techie’s Paradise appeared first on Law Street.