FDA will regulate some mobile medical apps as devices (NextGov, 24 Sept 2013) – The Food and Drug Administration plans to apply the same strict regulations to mobile apps as it does to medical devices, such as blood pressure monitors, if those apps perform the same functions as stand-alone or computer based devices. The FDA has developed a “tailored” approach to regulation of mobile apps that would allow use of some apps without oversight, according to Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “Some mobile apps carry minimal risks to consumers or patients, but others can carry significant risks if they do not operate correctly,” he said. The FDA said that “if a mobile app is intended for use in performing a medical device function (i.e. for diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease), it is a medical device, regardless of the platform on which it is run,” in a guidance document for industry and its staff released Monday. A mobile app that doctors or patients use to log and track trends with their blood pressure would not be regulated as a device. Mobile medical apps that recommend calorie or carbohydrate intakes to people who track what they eat also are also not within the current focus of FDA’s regulatory oversight.

Provided by MIRLN.

Photo courtesy of stockimages/FreeDigitalPhotos.net

“Link rot” at the Supreme Court: 49% of links in decisions don’t work (GigaOM, 23 Sept 2013) – Adam Liptak of theNew York Times provides a lively account of how half the links in Supreme Court decisions — links that provide precedent and justify the law — lead to broken or missing webpages. The so-called “link rot,” described in a Harvard study, is a problem for the legal profession, and shows how courts’ shift away from fusty paper practices isn’t all positive. More broadly, the situation shows how future discussions of infrastructure renewal should encompass plans to repair the country’s digital infrastructure as well.

Provided by MIRLN.

 

Image courtesy of Stuart Miles/FreeDigitalPhotos.net.

 

The latest backlash of the NSA spying scandal may not be directed squarely at the U.S. government, but at U.S. businesses.  President Rousseff of Brazil is proposing legislation which would require data generated within the country to also be stored on servers within the country.  What kind of data and exactly how this would work given the breadth and complexity of identifying where data originates from in our ever interconnected world is not yet clear.

As this article in Bloomberg points out, Latin Americans have long been suspicious of U.S. spying activities in the continent.  However, Brazil would not be the first country to make such a requirement on technology companies.  Currently, European countries require personal sensitive data to be stored on servers in-country.  Technology advocates cite slower traffic speeds and increased potential problems with the proposed legislation.  Requiring companies to house servers domestically may also result in protectionist measures meant to bolster local technology industries, and perhaps even trade disputes.

 

Google doesn’t think so.  In court filings last month, Google argued not only that someone using its service has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of their emails, but that anyone that sends a Gmail user an email has no expectation of privacy.  The main case cited by Google was Smith v. Maryland, whereby the Supreme Court held that the use of a pen register (a device that records all numbers called from a particular phone line) was not a violation of the 4th Amendment because no reasonable expectation of privacy existed in the numbers you were dialing as you were freely giving these to the phone company in order to connect you.

While Google’s arguments may be relevant to the NSA’s metadata collection programs, Google’s algorithms go beyond recording email addresses, but read the content of emails as well.  For this reason, in this author’s opinion, the analogy with Smith is strained to say the least.

In what makes for some interesting reading, the class action complaint filed against Google that has precipitated these 4th Amendment arguments, largely revolves around Google’s decision to change its privacy policies related to all of its products to a single policy which allows Google to use information obtained from one product with a consumers use on any of its products.

Citing an Eric Schmidt quote (Google policy is to get right up to the creepy line and not cross it. – October 2010), the complaint can be summed up by saying that the Plaintiff’s believe that Google has officially crossed the creepy line and into breaking the law territory.

While the blogosphere is hammering Google for this admission, it may actually work in their favor- the more the world knows that Google is reading and using your information (beyond the indiscernible privacy policies that is), the less a person will, in the future, be able to continue to claim that they have an expectation of privacy because they’ve been put on notice about Google practices.  This is exactly, in fact, what Google argues with respect to the named Plaintiffs.  Even knowing this, hundreds of millions of people continue to use Google products because, well, there pretty darn good and they’re free.  Wait…what was that adage again?  Oh yeah-

“If you’re not paying for the product, you are the product.”

A copy of the original complaint (albeit severely redacted) of the lawsuit is available here.

A copy of Google’s motion to dismiss and its arguments relating to reasonable expectation of privacy is available here.