understanding-it-law-blog

[understanding-it-law-blog]

A really interesting article that delves into the jurisdictional problems that can happen with cloud computing!

[understanding-it-law-blog]

Discussing privacy issues in Smart cities. Don’t mind the emoji, I am pretty camera shy!

[understanding-it-law-blog]

Web technologies changed how we interact socially

The flurry of web technologies that came into existence after internet boom led to massive changes in how we interact with other humans. Social media and mobile apps have led to one of the greatest changes in social interaction human society have ever experienced. In a few short years, we became fully-fledged members of a new communications revolution, the ability to instantly communicate and share our thoughts and experiences with anyone who cares to take note changed the rules of social interaction. It is hard to imagine a world now where we aren’t continuously bombarded with the documentation of a child’s life or the gastronomical delights that looked far too good to be true. Sharing a carefully selected segment of our lives with the masses has become the norm and along with a new set of privacy concerns unique to the information age.

Most social media and websites that relate to social interaction are provided free of charge to the end user. The fact that these services were free led to millions of people signing up to share their thoughts, experiences and (more importantly) their information. Websites such as a Facebook and Google are free to use because they use the information you provide to create targeted and personalised advertising designed to engage with you. They generate billions in advertising revenue through the information you share publicly, but they also utilise the information that you don’t share publicly. I fondly remember talking a friend of mine through Facebook messenger where we discussed the plans to holiday in Croatia post exams. The conversation was private between the two of us but within days of our correspondence, I was started to notice EasyJet adverts advertising flights to Croatia on my Facebook page. I ultimately did book my flights through EasyJet, though I refused to click on the advert (spiteful I know).

In a post-Snowdon era, where we learnt the extent of government surveillance, privacy has become an issue at the forefront of our minds. We, however, trade our right to privacy to private companies to benefit from free services as paying for them is an unattractive proposition. Ultimately private companies are for-profit-businesses that require our information to better advertise products and services to us, we entrust them with our information when we don’t fully understand how they use that information. The recent scandal with Cambridge Analytica is a prime example of the potential abuse that can occur when a private entity failed to prevent the mass data scraping that occurred; over 50 million users’ personal information was harvested from Facebook. Whilst some may argue that Facebook’s use of information to personal advertisements is fair game due to the service being free, the use of that information to target individuals with political adverts based on their psychological profiles is an alarming thought. The ability to influence an individual’s political views or their voting habits by flagrantly abusing their personal information for a price is a grave threat to our right to privacy and our democracy, it cannot be allowed to happen again.  

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/26/the-cambridge-analytica-files-the-story-so-far

https://theconversation.com/if-its-free-online-you-are-the-product-95182

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyO-n5Fcu2Y 

https://medium.com/w-i-t/ways-social-media-has-changed-our-society-38fd4d3e5ce8

[understanding-it-law-blog]

In the absence of Mark Zuckberg at the Facebook’s international hearing on the 28th Nov 2018, Richard Allan (Facebook’s vice-president of policy solutions) stepped into answer questions relating to fake news. An MP from Singapore, Edwin Tong, grilled Mr Allan over a Facebook’s failing to remove hate speech related content on Facebook that was in relation to race issues in Sri Lanka.

[understanding-it-law-blog]

The cry of p2p and filesharing platforms!

Did you know that p2p and filesharing platforms can be held liable for contributory copyright infringement if users share copyrighted material on their platforms, even if they do not know it exists! 

[understanding-it-law-blog]

Interesting fact for you! Though a company may be the copyright owner of a software’s source and object code, in the USA and Europe there are certain scenarios where decompiling (a form of reverse engineering) is permitted. That being said, what goes on in this clip from Halt and Catch Fire is probably not! 

[understanding-it-law-blog]

Introduction to Intellectual Property and Information Technology

As humans, we possess the ability to think abstractly and create material ranging from artistic works to technical designs. We are influenced by previous creators and that inspiration from existing work is fundamental to the development of artistic and technical material. Inspired as we may be by previous creators, the lines between original content and regurgitated material can get quite blurred! Intellectual property is described by the World Intellectual Property Organization as property that “refers to creations of the mind: inventions; literary and artistic works; and symbols, names and images used in commerce”, it covers two core areas: industrial property and copyright.

Intellectual property rights, as with many areas of law, has had to evolve with the advent of information technology. Advances in computing power and the ability to connect to millions of individuals through the internet has created many hurdles for intellectual property. In particular, the innovation of computers led to the development of user-oriented software through the use of programming languages. Coding a software using a programming language requires a highly skilled individual to write a series of commands that form the source code of that program. Source code (and the object code once compiled) fall under copyright protection because the code is essentially a piece of literary work and software code in both formats has a well-established history of being protected by copyright provisions. Problems arise as software is ultimately a functional tool rather than a work of art to be enjoyed subjectively by an individual, leaving programmers the headache of being able to write a program that performs a function which may require the same code a competitor uses. Though copyright law protects the code of a software and the ‘look and feel’ of an interface, the function of the software is not protected. This inevitably leads to similar programs being made available to the public, who are left to choose their preferred program but leaves companies hefty legal fees as they contest their ownership to ideas in court.

Ultimately intellectual property rights in software are well protected by the law and there are clear rules as to what is and isn’t permitted but as technology continues to evolve we will see increased arbitration in the courts as creators fight for their ownership rights (not the worst scenario in the world if you’re an IP lawyer!).

https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2017/12/designers-copyright-law-essentials/