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