Encrypt your phone calls with Signal for iPhone and RedPhone for Android (Lawyerist, 30 July 2014) – Security is getting simpler and easier, thanks to companies like Open Whisper Systems , which now has encrypted calling apps for both iPhone and Android. RedPhone for Android has been out for a while, and Signal is a brand-new encrypted calling app and service for iPhone . Both are free to download and use. Both apps are also open-source (you can find the code on Github ) so that anyone can audit the code to ensure it does what it is supposed to do. What they do is encrypt phone calls between Signal or RedPhone users. If someone were to gain access to your phone meta data, for example, all they would be able to see is that you called Whisper System’s servers, which do not keep any logs. The call itself is encrypted and decrypted locally on your phone, which makes it extremely difficult for anyone to figure out how to listen in. Signal is a good-looking app that blends in well with iOS 7. (RedPhone just uses the default Android system dialer, so it does not change the look and feel of calls other than to add a RedPhone Call label to secure calls.) Signing up is as simple as providing your phone number, then confirming it with a code sent by text message. It’s a convenient signup method that does away with usernames and passwords. After that, Signal works a lot like the regular iPhone phone app. You just have to launch Signal, instead, in order to make secure calls. The only real downside to Signal and RedPhone is that your friends need to have the app in order for you to call them securely. If you try to call someone who is not already registered with Signal, it will offer to invite them to Signal via text message. RedPhone works a bit differently, since it integrates with the Android dialer. RedPhone will let you call anyone, and it uses encryption whenever the person you call has RedPhone installed.

 Provided by MIRLN.

 

From MIRLN founder, Vince Polley:

Polley : I’ve installed Signal, and see that a few of my friends & colleagues already have it on their iPhones. Give it a try; give me a call.]

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/StuartMiles.

Law firms respond to security risks in client data (LTN, 7 July 2014) – In February 2013, Joe Patrice wrote in Above The Law that law firms were the “ soft underbelly of American cybersecurity .” Today, it is safe to say that many law firms across the U.S., Canada and Europe take exception to that characterization. Why? In part due to the efforts of individual firms to adopt ISO 27001 security standards or implement more robust security programs, including information security education. Also in February 2013 the former special agent in charge of cyber and special operations with the FBI’s New York office, Mary Galligan, stated “ We have hundreds of law firms that we see increasingly being targeted by hackers .” There isn’t one single law firm CIO or IT director who doesn’t understand the weight of these statements. Many large law firms have actively engaged in internal and external initiatives to fight security threats. * * * Law firm clients in the financial services industry heavily scrutinize their outside counsel with vendor security audits. Governed by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency and the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council in compliance with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, all law firms who have financial institution clients are required to respond to a comprehensive security audit. The audit process is detailed, and in many cases includes questionnaires with several hundred questions, on-site interviews and or on-site physical security assessments covering everything from hard-copy file security to data center security.

Provided by MIRLN.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/Stuart Miles.

Can Tech Help Prevent Violence Against Women? These Tools Say ‘Yes’
It’s very difficult to measure how women are in constant fear — or at least, that we always have some looming thought in the back of our minds — when we walk alone or with a group of other women, no matter how close to home or to people we may be. Technology can’t solve this problem, but it can change the course of how we think about it, and ultimately, how we address it as a society. Technology can make it impossible to ignore these issues.
See the full article (TechRepublic, Lyndsey Gilpin, 7/23/14)

Provided by USIP.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/Stuart Miles.

An International Conference on Online Dispute ResolutionODR2014 will bring together the technology and dispute resolution communities, legal practitioners, mediators and other ADR professionals, academic researchers, financial institutions, ecommerce companies and social media companies, members of judiciaries worldwide, and social justice advocates using innovative technologies to leverage change. ODR2014 is the thirteenth ODR Forum and the first to be held in the United States. The ODR Forum has previously been held in:

Geneva (2002 and 2003); Melbourne (2004); Cairo (2006); Liverpool (2007); Hong Kong (2007); Victoria (2008); Haifa (Israel) (2009); Buenos Aires (2010); Chennai (India) (2011); Prague (2012); Montreal (2013)

For more information, visit odr2014.org.

By Jeffrey M. Aresty

President, Founder, Internet Bar Organization

The changes resulting from the rise of the Internet are taking hold, and the legal community has yet to catch up to the way the world is now interacting. As our modes of business and daily interactions take place increasingly over the Web, the world is beginning to define the ways in which those exchanges will be characterized. This presents a new range of challenges for us in the legal field and as a global community, but it also presents an opportunity. Bringing the rule of law online will be an essential part of determining how we shape the future of global normative behavior and present an opportunity to redefine what we believe to be the right way to act, based not only on the multiplicity of laws as they stand, but rather based on a new organic democracy that will define itself in an harmonized way. The ability to negotiate, reach consensus, and resolve disputes online will be an essential set of skills for all who participate. But why does this new system of norms need to be defined in an haphazard fashion as countries everywhere come up with their own sets of laws to govern online behavior, leading to conflict and confusion?

Individuals from the online dispute resolution community have met regularly to examine the newest technologies and issues that are affecting justice in online interactions, and come this year to the United States to discuss topics like the role of privacy, identity and trust on the internet, and how they relate to justice.

This is where the role of trusted online communities comes into play. And one of the biggest factors in trust in online interactions is verification of and trust in identity. Just as a democracy depends upon the right of each citizen to their vote, access to justice for each individual in a globally based justice system depends upon being able to verify who is accessing the system, and making sure that the system is trustworthy in all respects, from the users to the design itself. Many individuals have spoken on the need to develop an “identity” layer of the internet that verifies user identity on top of the interactive web as a step toward solidifying trust in exchange and communication online. I believe this is the case, and that it will go hand in hand with the creation of what I call a “justice” layer — a new definition of normative behavior for how we relate to one another, including trust in identity. This will be supported not only by the legal complex, but also by global consensus and collective action toward what we define as justice. The resolution of disputes online will become a knowledge set that the legal community and others will need to understand.

But for every answer, there appear to be many more questions, particularly when dealing with the cultural technicolor fabric of our planet. For example, how do we balance the necessity of democracy through digital identification with, as the European Commission has defined, the right to be forgotten? How much control can and should we have over the information compiled online about our person? How much control should our government have?

Innovation has been helping to address some of these questions. Start-ups likeQredo and Wickr are taking steps to develop technology that will allow users access to secure platforms and close to complete control over their online identity and information. Checks and balances, peer review and transparency will also play a part in any viable system.

The creation of a technology-enabled system of effective democracy will require all segments of society to participate. Industry has the opportunity to play a leading role in helping shape a “justice layer” of internet communication on top of the internet communication protocol it helped to build over 20 years ago. It will also require the participation of academia, a non-fearing legal system, and the global community as a whole to create a truly “we the people” system of online governance.

Published originally by the Huffington Post.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net/Stuart Miles.

Hosted by IBO (parent of The Center), Modria, and Code for America, and in conjunction with the ODR2014 Conference,  the first ever dispute resolution hackathon was held the weekend of June 21-22nd tackling problems within 4 thematic areas, and producing prototypes that will be curated and presented to audiences at ODR2014’s UC Hastings event, where winners will be announced. The hackathon took place at Code For America‘s San Francisco Office.

The idea of a legal ‘hackathon,’ is a new one. To date, only a handful of legal hackathons have taken place in the United States, and none have specifically addressed dispute resolution.

The themes that were hacked include:

  • collaborative economy
  • cyberbullying & harassment
  • healthcare dispute management
  • environment
  • landlord & tenancy

Teams produced  5-15 minute presentations on the various themes and proposed a tech solution, how it addresses the issue, and its potential for scaleability.

Platforms included iOS; Mobile Web; Web; Mac Desktop; Windows Desktop
The Judges were:
Steve Baloff Advanced Technology Ventures (and Founder of Travelocity)
Tomio Geron Head of Content and Research, Exitround
Jason Mendelson Foundry Ventures
David Beyer Amplify Partners
Jeffrey Allen Graves & Allen
Ben Parr Co-Founder & Managing Partner of DominateFund; Former Co-Editor of Mashable
c6423ebb-f81d-4c6b-a554-39e7d967e6e7