Is Bitcoin money? (Anita Ramasastry, 9 Sept 2014) – Bitcoin confounds lawmakers as they try to figure out what it is and how it should be regulated. The Bitcoin Foundation notes that Bitcoin is an innovative payment network and a new kind of money. But is it money? Some call it a new form of virtual currency. Others have lauded it as a new type of payment system. So what is it? And why does it matter? What we call it may not matter much in casual conversation, but how it is categorized does have significant implications when it comes to regulation. If it is “money” or “currency,” then existing laws and regulations may apply to businesses and consumers who issue, sell, or transact with Bitcoin. From banking laws to anti-money-laundering laws and tax regulations-whether these laws apply to the use of Bitcoin depends on how Bitcoin is classified. At present there is no consensus as to what we should call Bitcoin or how it should be defined for purposes of applying legal rules. As I will discuss in this column, courts and regulators are coming up with different theories and classifications as a way of figuring out whether this new product/payment vehicle is or is not covered by different laws. As I will also discuss, it appears that lawmakers, at times, restrict the term “money” or “currency” to refer only to government-issued money or legal tender. This conflicts with basic definitions of money, found in both economics texts and in dictionaries. If certain laws are meant only to deal with government-issued currencies, then perhaps we should revise statutory definitions to make such distinctions clearer. In the meantime, we will need to sit back and watch regulators around the globe grapple with whether or not Bitcoin is “money.”

 

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/VictorHabbick

Apple says iOS 8 update keeps data private, even from the police (NYT, 17 Sept 2014) – Apple wants to make clear that it wants nobody snooping around in your device, not even the police. The company said Wednesday night that its latest software system, iOS 8, included deep protection of the information stored on Apple mobile devices. So deep, in fact, that Apple says it has become technically impossible for it to comply with government warrants asking for customer information like photos, email, messages, contacts, call history and notes, to be extracted from devices. The company said all this information was under the protection of a customer’s passcode, the four-digit number used to log in to the device. In the past, Apple was able to extract certain types of information from devices, even when they were locked with a passcode, in response to a valid search warrant. The new security in iOS 8 protects information stored on the device itself, but not data stored on Apple’s cloud service. So Apple will still be able to hand over some customer information stored on iCloud in response to government requests. Christopher Soghoian, a principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union, said Apple’s new privacy policy reflected the revelations of the government surveillance programs revealed in documents leaked by Edward J. Snowden. “The public has said they want companies to put their privacy first, and Apple has listened,” Mr. Soghoian said.

 

From MIRLN founder, Vince Polley:

Polley : but then a flurry of “warrant canary” stories, about whether or not Apple has been using a canary– Apple’s “warrant canary” disappears, suggesting new Patriot Act demands (GigaOM, 18 Sept 2014); and No, Apple probably didn’t get new secret gov’t orders to hand over data (ArsTechnica, 18 Sept 2014). Finally, a paper recommended by Chris Soghoian: Warrant Canaries as Tools For Transparency in the Wake of the Snowden Disclosures (SSNR by Naomi Gilens, April 2014) ]

 

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/sambuiblue

Should lawyers look to online dispute resolution to resolve disputes with clients? (Carolyn Elefant, 5 Sept 2014) – Online dispute resolution is rapidly gaining traction. Modria , a leading online dispute resolution (ODR) platform, boasts that its service is used to settle more than 60 million cases annually. Yet even though ABA task forces have studied, and appear to endorse ODR, I’ve not found much mention of the potential uses of ODR to resolve disputes between lawyers and clients. Currently, in most state ethics codes , lawyers may include binding arbitration clauses in representation agreements resolution of legal malpractice disputes . But should lawyers consider including ODR clauses instead – not necessarily as binding requirements but perhaps as prerequisites to litigation. Consumers are already familiar with the ODR process as its used widely in e-commerce, so they would understand the need to adequately documenting their claims. And while granted, the relative ease of ODR could invite groundless fee disputes from clients, that’s probably preferable to posting negative reviews or filing a grievance. Attorneys could benefit from ODR also, using it to attempt to collect debts owed from clients. I realize that going after fees always raises the prospect of malpractice or a grievance, but because ODR is less intimidating than a court process, perhaps clients would be less likely to retaliate. Or not – this may be purely wishful thinking. And even if attorneys don’t make the option of ODR available through participation in a third party service, bar associations could offer online fee dispute resolution. Many bars offer this service already but ODR would make it faster and more efficient as well.

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/cooldesign

NIH tells genomic researchers: ‘You must share data’ (Chronicle of Higher Ed, 28 August 2014) – Scientists who use government money to conduct genomic research will now be required to quickly share the data they gather under a policy announced on Wednesday by the National Institutes of Health. The data-sharing policy, which will take effect with grants awarded in January, will give agency-financed researchers six months to load any genomic data they collect-from human or nonhuman subjects-into a government-established database or a recognized alternative. NIH officials described the move as the latest in a series of efforts by the federal government to improve the efficiency of taxpayer-financed research by ensuring that scientific findings are shared as widely as possible. “We’ve gone from a circumstance of saying, ‘Everybody should share data,’ to now saying, in the case of genomic data, ‘You must share data,’” said Eric D. Green, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the NIH. The NIH’s plan to require data-sharing hasn’t been entirely popular with the researchers themselves, at least not in the early stages. When it appeared last year, the initial version of the NIH’s policy proposal drew criticism from the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the nation’s largest coalition of biomedical researchers, and the Association of American Medical Colleges, whose members include all 141 accredited U.S. medical schools.

 

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/cooldesign

Get the GC plugged in to cybersecurity (Corporate Counsel, 13 August 2014) – As more countries try to create rules to deal with cybersecurity and data privacy, general counsel need to become more engaged participants in the conversation, said Kaye Scholer partner Adam Golodner, because those rules will affect future business. Recent incidents, including the massive hacking of data by a Russian gang revealed last week and the theft of customer financial data from Target Corp. in December, only accelerate the process. So GCs should “engage in those discussions now,” Golodner told CorpCounsel.com this week. Cybersecurity is a fundamental issue for general counsel and corporate counsel, Golodner said, and it now has escalated to a board of directors’ issue. “We’ve seen significant change over the past three years where it has matured to a top-level risk management issue,” he explained. Proposed legislation in the EU, he noted, will set cybersecurity standards for all enterprises. The proposal affects network and information security separate from the EU’s data privacy directive. Before these standards become final, Golodner said, there’s still a chance for multinational companies to participate in what the rules will look like.

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/twobee

US universities at greater risk for security breaches than retail and healthcare (ZDnet, 21 August 2014) – The back-to-school season is a busy time for many, even hackers. According to a new report by the security rankings provider BitSight Technologies, higher education institutions experience an influx in malicious cyberattacks during the school year. But what’s worse is that most of those universities are ill-equipped to prevent and handle such attacks, which, according to the report, results in cybersecurity rankings below that of retail and healthcare – two sectors plagued by near-constant security attacks that often result in successful breaches. The majority of attacks experienced by higher education institutions come from malware infections, with the most prevalent being Flashback, which targets Apple computers. Other prominent malware include Ad-ware and Conficker. BitSight said universities are the targets of so many attacks because they harbor a trove of sensitive and personal data, ranging from addresses and social security numbers to credit card numbers and intellectual property – and hackers are quick to notice the weak IT infrastructure in place to keep that data protected.

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/StuartMiles