“Be careful what you post.” This may be the most obvious of social media commandments. Yet, it’s also true that it’s difficult to control the degree of public access to photos and messages posted on a social media platform, and one never knows who may be reading or monitoring your posts.
Recently, we noted vulnerability issues from use of the Internet of Things and how that has come to impact the health industry. Recent events continue to highlight this development. Since the start of the year, there have been cyber attacks targeting hospitals. Perhaps recognizing the extensive disruption and potential privacy concerns to patients, the hackers have targeted these institutions to either make a point or seek large sums in exchange for returning access to the hospital data. In January, Hurley Medical Center, based in Flint, Mich., was attacked, although a spokesperson stated that policies and protocols were followed and patient care was not compromised. The hacktivist group Anonymous released a video with the hashtag #OpFlint prior to the cyber attack and suggests responsibility for the breach to make a point regarding the city’s water crisis, although no confirmation has been made.
China has issued new, wide-ranging regulations on the publication of virtually any type of content over the Internet. The new rules, promulgated jointly by the PRC State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television (SAPPRFT) and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), go into effect on March 10.
In her post “The FCC Has Written Good Contest Rules, Now You Should, Too” over at Pillsbury’s CommLawCenter blog, Lauren Lynch Flick has written a good summary—and provided a number of useful takeaways—regarding the FCC’s new Licensee-Conducted Contested Rule. While the rule focuses on broadcaster-run contests, the importance of clear language in contest guidelines and write-ups is a valuable lesson to keep in mind, regardless the medium.
Amazon adjusts its TOS to account for a zombie apocalypse; Apple and Facebook ponder different roads for VR and its devices; the BBC will scan your face to see how you feel about what you’re viewing; and more …
Continue Reading →
The cybersecurity ramifications of the Internet of Things (IoT) are perhaps nowhere more crucial—potentially a matter of life and death, in fact—than in the realm of medical devices. Until recent times, a potential hack of the data-sharing that is a hallmark of the IoT raised far more privacy concerns than actual health risks. However, as medical devices begin to evolve and make use of the connectivity of the IoT, this balance may change. For one example, think pacemakers, where a malicious glitch in a networked piece of equipment could have fatal consequences.
Continue Reading →
Frequent readers of our blog will recall that in prior posts on companies such as Uber, Ashley Madison and Twitter, we have stressed the importance of having a robust terms of service (TOS) agreement. In many instances, TOS, if adeptly deployed, can limit a social media or gaming company’s liability to its users. We now see that TOS can also effectively limit the remedies available to these potential plaintiffs.
Continue Reading →
Augmented reality goes to the Superbowl; Cisco commits to the Internet of Things with a billion-dollar embrace (even as IBM belatedly embraces the cloud); the staying power of the sharing economy is questioned; and more …
In our recent post, Living in a Nonmaterial World: Determining IP Rights for Digital Data, we discussed the potential impact of the Federal Circuit decision in ClearCorrect v. ITC, 2014-1527, in which the appeals court held that the “articles that infringe” are limited to “material things” and thus do not include “electronic transmission of digital data.” The decision limited the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to articles that are considered physical products. The implications of the decision are far-reaching since the Internet of Things touches on most industry sectors. As previously noted, the decision has been supported by open-Internet advocacy groups, characterizing the decision as a “win for the Internet,” while other groups (including the dissent to the opinion) see the decision as a significant setback in the fight against overseas piracy of patented and copyrighted works.
The future of ride-sharing companies has hung in the balance for more than two years while class actions and labor complaints were pending against industry giants Uber, Lyft and others. The ride-sharing companies have primarily fought with their drivers over the driver’s employment status—a conflict between whether the drivers are employees entitled to benefits or independent contractors responsible for paying for their own expenses such as gas and vehicle maintenance. (See our earlier posts, Uber Is Driving an Unknown Road and Avoiding Uber Trouble via Good Terms of Service.) After a tide of unfavorable court decisions for its competitor Uber, on Tuesday, Lyft agreed to settle a California class-action lawsuit brought in 2013 by its drivers seeking reclassification from independent contractor to full-time employees and the benefits associated with employee status.
