Category: Business

Analyzing health data to change the way doctors practice medicine

December 25, 2015 Abby Shulman Leave a comment Business, Health Justice

Global security company Northrop Grumman is collaborating with the University of Maryland Baltimore County to analyze health data as part of a five-year program, as announced earlier this year. The program’s goal is to utilize health trends found in large populations to create specific and effective treatments for those suffering from widespread ailments such as diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

The National Science Foundation, which funds big data-analytics science and technology projects, is offering $600,000 in grants to the project. Northrop and UMBC already have a cybersecurity partnership; the tools previously used to investigate cyberthreats will now be used to study decades’ worth of medical information stored on electronic health records.

Yelena Yesha, the leader of the project and a professor of computer science at the university, says that information will be pulled from both public and private databases. Records will be used to help doctors practice precision medicine, which is the treatment of people based on their specific genetic makeups. In order to gather such large quantities of genetic data, the project will use a Google-designed cloud-computing platform. Both Northrop and the defense contractor Lockheed Martin foresee precision medicine to be widely practiced in the future.

Article via The Washington Post, April 14, 2015

Photo: Over 500 doctors have completed a three year specialization in family medicine via World Bank Photo Collection [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Brazil suspends Whatsapp for 100 million users

December 21, 2015 Abby Shulman Leave a comment Business, Citizen Justice, Court, Government, Privacy, Social Media

Brazil’s government recently banned the Facebook-owned communication service Whatsapp for 48 hours after the company refused to hand over user data to authorities. Whatsapp is used by 100 million Brazilians, many who prefer the app to standard texting and calling. As a result, the ban was met with outrage. Some called for the impeachment of Brazil’s president Dilma Rousseff; others immediately switched to an alternative messaging service, Telegram.

Law enforcement has been in conflict with Whatsapp for months due to Facebook’s refusal to hand over user data from a suspected drug user. The irony, however, is that Brazil condemned the NSA in 2013 after Edward Snowden exposed the surveillance agency’s data collection practices.

In a 2013 speech to the U.N., President Rousseff asserted, “My government will do everything within its reach to defend the human rights of all Brazilians, and to protect the fruits borne from the ingenuity of our workers and our companies.”

Following Snowden’s leak, Brazil even committed to a $185 million project to construct a fiber optic cable transporting data to and from Portugal while bypassing the United States, so that U.S. authorities could not intercept information. U.S. businesses were prohibited from participating in the project.

In response to the suspension of Whatsapp, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said: “I am stunned that our efforts to protect people’s data would result in such an extreme decision by a single judge to punish every person in Brazil who uses WhatsApp.”

Article via Washington Post, December 17, 2015

Photo: Visita de Dilma Rousseff via La Moncloa Gobierno de Espana

[Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Harlem to receive first venture capital fund

December 6, 2015 Abby Shulman Leave a comment Business, Economy

After introducing the accelerator program Cofound Harlem three months ago, 22-year-old John Henry has just announced his plans to launch Harlem’s first venture capital fund. Cofound Ventures, as the VC fund is called, has a goal to raise $8 million in order to run the accelerator program and fund Harlem startups.

Currently, all of New York City’s venture capital firms are located below Central Park, with most operating in midtown Manhattan. Cofound Ventures plans to establish itself in East Harlem on 5th Ave and East 118th St.

“Harlem has never had a fund,” said Henry. “It’s a very special town. There’s a lot of recent development with Columbia expanding, and it’s the perfect time to put up the first fund.”

Cofound Ventures will provide up to $100,000 in additional funding to each company that uses Cofound Harlem’s accelerator. The accelerator program already provides startups initial stipends of $50,000, free office space and mentorship. Instead of taking equity from the startups operating under it, Cofound Harlem requires that each startup operate for its four years in Harlem.

Harlem’s unemployment rate is twice the national average. Through the funding and mentorship of startups, Henry estimates to create 800 high-paying jobs in the next four years. Startups will be also be required to host workshops to the community, free of charge, during their nine month use of Cofound Harlem’s office space.

In Cofound Harlem’s first round of startups, 75 percent of the founders are minorities.

“In terms of what we’re looking for going forward, there is no, say, direct criteria that you have to be underrepresented to be admitted, although we definitely have it in mind,” Henry said. “My goal is to keep this 75 percent for the duration of the cohort. If you consider for a moment that everyone who went through the program was white, I don’t think it would have a meaningful impact.”

Article via TechCrunch, 4 December 2015

Photo: Harlem via Ian Freimuth [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Private Capital for Funding Law Firms Serving Low and Moderate Income Clients

December 1, 2015 Christy Leos Leave a comment Business, Economy, Finance, In the Law, News

By Richard Granat

One of the obstacles to the development of innovative software solutions that automate part of the legal service delivery process resulting in lower, more affordable legal fees is the absence of capital. Traditional methods of legal service delivery based on hourly billing rates out of reach for low and moderate income clients.  Capital investment is required to create innovative web-based software solutions that can enable low and moderate income clients to either solve legal problems on their own as pro-se litigants, or to enable law firms to offer legal solutions at a more affordable price point.

The major obstacle to making more capital available to law firms, is the prohibition on investment in law firms by nonlawyers enshrined in the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Responsibility and replicated in the state rules of professional responsibility that regulate lawyers in their state. [ See Rule 5.4 – Professional Independence of a Lawyer ].

There has been little innovation within solo and smaller law firms to develop client-centered, web-based applications that provide a low cost solution to low and moderate income clients. Instead innovation is centered in the vendor community that provides tools to law firms, usually as a SaaS service for a monthly subscription fee. A good example is our own DirectLaw virtual law firm platform that provides a client-centered document automation application, and other tools that enables a law firm to unbundled legal services for a fixed fee to clients online. While the value of innovation outside of the law firm, within the vendor sector of the legal industry, is not to be minimized, it is the lawyer within the law firm that has the most nuanced view about what their clients need and want. The lawyer within the law firm also has the primary interest in figuring out how to develop and manage the delivery of legal services so that for certain kinds of legal problems a scalable, volume-based business model can be implemented.

Innovation requires capital. It is capital intensive to develop software applications and new delivery systems for legal services. Solos and small law firms that serve individuals and families do not have access to capital. Whatever innovation is taking place in the delivery of legal services is happening outside of the legal profession in organizations like LegalZoom financed by venture capital, or the within legal aid programs funded in part by the Technology grant program within the Legal Services Program, or outside of the United States. [See also, blog post from Lexicata – How Law Firms Can be More Like LegalZoom ].

There has been much controversial discussion with the legal profession on modifying the ownership rules that apply to law firms, with little result. For example, the American Bar Association created last year a Commission on the Future of Legal Services to address the access to justice problem, under the under the leadership of then ABA-President William C. Hubbard.   The Commission convened a National Summit on Innovation in Legal Services, in May 2015 where private investment in law firms as a prerequisite to innovation was on the agenda. But I have yet to see any progress on this issue within the American Bar Association. Unlike other countries, private investment in law firms as a way to develop new ways of serving a latent market for legal services is dead on arrival when it reaches the ABA’s House of Delegates, although 80% of the U.S. population can’t afford the cost of legal services and is unserved by the legal profession.

The evidence we have seen in the United Kingdom, where the legal profession has moved towards de-regulation, and where capital can flow freely into law firms, suggests that the United States will remain a laggard in innovation in the delivery of legal services until this problem can be fixed. In the UK, LegalZoom is taking advantage of this de-regulation by becoming an ABS [ Alternative Business Structure ].  As a private company, operating in the UK, LegalZoom can offer legal services directly to the public. LegalZoom plans to use this opportunity to develop and experiment with new end-to-end legal services for consumers with the idea that in the far distant future these innovations can be imported into the U.S. legal market.

The bottom line is that you can’t really innovate without access to capital – it is the fuel of innovation. For solo and small law firms that serve people, rather than large corporations, capital is not available for innovation unless the lawyer or law firm has generated capital from their practice and makes a conscious decision to invest in software automation and web-based solutions.

An example of a law firm that has accumulated capital (because of litigation against the mortgage servicing companies and the banks in the robo-signing scandal during the U.S foreclosure crisis) is IceLegal, P.A., a small law firm based in Florida. IceLegal, under the leadership of Thomas Ice, is launching its own access to justice initiative.  The firm has also created its own LegalYou video channel for educating pro-se litigants.  This is a project of the law firm (not of a private company), and will  provide low cost legal solutions to Florida residents. If LegalYou is a success it will serve a new latent market ignored by most of Florida’s law firms. LegalYou is the exception rather than the rule.

One would think that Internet-savvy, recent law school graduates would be motivated to serve a latent market for legal services by developing innovative solutions, but handicapped by large student loans they are forced into career roles that provide sufficient cash flow to amortize those loans. Risk-taking is not an option for them.

A Proposal: Safe Harbor for Law Firms Serving Low and Moderate Income Clients

To increase the flow of capital to law solos and small law firms who wish to serve only low and moderate income clients with automated legal solutions, I propose that:

  • The American Bar Association amend Rule 5.4 to permit private investment in just those law firms that serve low and moderate income clients exclusively.
  • Personal injury and other contingent fee practices would be excluded from this exception as capital is self-generating for successful firms in these practice areas.
  • To comfort those who are concerned that the independence of the lawyer is compromised by this proposal, the law firm must remain at least a 51% owner of the law firm. Private investors can be minority shareholders only.
  • It is relatively easy to create an income generation screen to capture just low and moderate income clients for the law firm, and exclude those of higher income. The data from this intake process can be archived and audited to comply with the exception to the rule.

Creating this exception opens up the opportunity for smaller law firms to take advantage of crowd-funding opportunities, the angel investor community, and the new SEC rules that permit crowd-funding investment. Further, the rich relatives and friends (if they exist) of a young lawyer could fund the new lawyer’s law firm, and get a return on investment, without the lawyer risking disbarment because of violation of the 5.4.

An argument can also be made that enabling law firms that serve primarily corporate entities can create capital on their own without additional incentives and should not be able to take advantage of this safe harbor. Most large law firms represent corporate entities (banks, insurance companies, health care organizations, drug companies,  manufacturers, financial organizations) whose legal positions are opposed to many consumer interests.  These firms should have to use their own capital to become more efficient so as not to tip the balances against the consumer even more than it is.

One would think that this modest proposal to enable innovation designed to increase access to the legal system for clients who can’t afford the high cost of legal fees would be an idea that that American Bar Association and state bar associations might entertain or even discuss.

However, given that the structure of regulation of the legal profession is controlled by the legal profession, this idea will probably be dead on arrival.

Article via eLawyering Blog, 4 December 2015

Photo: the shadow of justice via Jack [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Blackberry takes stand for protecting user privacy

December 1, 2015 Shelby Bice Leave a comment Business, Privacy

Finding the balance between data surveillance and protecting user privacy is an ongoing process, but Blackberry has just chosen to take a stand for the latter. The company has decided to pull operations from Pakistan after demands from their Telecommunications Authority for unrestricted access to Blackberry Enterprise Services. The Pakistani government was basically asking for a “backdoor” to access encrypted message and emails sent or received within Pakistan. Blackberry not only refused to cooperate with the demands in Pakistan but has also stated that they will not submit to any demands for unrestricted “backdoor” access in any country.

While protecting user privacy is important, ensuring safety of citizens sometimes requires governments to conduct data surveillance. Blackberry has stated that these demands from Pakistani government do not fall under the realm of public safety. Rather, “Pakistan was essentially demanding unfettered access to all of our BES customers’ information,” explained Chief Operating Officer Marty Beard. In the blog post Beard released explaining Blackberry’s withdrawal from Pakistan, he stated that while Blackberry is more than willing to assist with law enforcement’s investigations when a crime has been committed, it won’t grant companies “backdoor” access. This shouldn’t come as a shock; Blackberry has displayed that security is a main priority in their interactions with other governments and businesses.

Blackberry has now shown how they will react to requests for access to their customers’ digital data, but they won’t be the only company having to decide how to protect user privacy. As governments decide how important access to encrypted data is to national security, other companies may be faced with tough decisions concerning their positions in the surveillance versus privacy debate.

 

Article via CNET, November 30, 2015

Photo: Blackberry Bold via johncatral [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]

Government requests DNA from genealogy and biotechnology companies

November 21, 2015 Abby Shulman Leave a comment Business, Citizen Justice, Criminal Law, Government, Privacy

Five years ago, companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe provided the option of genealogy tracing and medical diagnostic tests for customers who submitted DNA samples. At the time, privacy advocates warned of the potential risks of letting businesses collect genetic databases.

Privacy advocate Jeremy Gruber summed it up in 2010 when he said that genetic material “has serious information about you and your family.” This information, if used beyond the purposes of genealogy tracing, has big implications in law enforcement and government tracking. Wired magazine cautioned, “Your relative’s DNA could turn you into a suspect.”

Currently, the FBI keeps a national genetic database of the DNA of convicts and arrestees. Both companies’ privacy policies state that upon court order, DNA information will be given to law enforcement. Yet, as Wired implicated, people have been wrongly accused of crimes for DNA near-matches in the past.

23andMe recently launched a transparency report, similar to other major tech companies that receive government requests for consumer information, within the next month.

“In the event we are required by law to make a disclosure, we will notify the affected customer through the contact information provided to us, unless doing so would violate the law or a court order,” said the company’s first privacy officer Kate Black.

Ancestry.com will not state explicitly how many government data requests the company has recieved.

“On occasion when required by law to do so… we have cooperated with law enforcement and the courts to provide only the specific information requested,” said a spokesperson.

Article via Fusion, October 16, 2015

Photo: DNA isolation 5 via Patrick Alexander [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs]