As time goes on, technology has not only assumed a larger role in the layman's life, but in the lawyer's as well. Today, wearable tech is all the rage -- and whenever something is all the rage, that's when professionals should let cooler heads take the lead. Because any sane-minded professional should realize that wearable tech presents an enormous security risk.
Recently in Mobile Phones / Smartphones Category
You need to know what's going on in the world, but you've rarely got time to sit down for the nightly news, let alone read through a newspaper. Sure, you can scan through social media or quickly browse a website, but that's a pretty haphazard way to stay informed of major news events.
That's where the Reuters TV app comes in. (Disclosure: Reuters is FindLaw's sister company.) Reuters TV allows you to get high-quality, authentic journalism no matter how busy you are, by creating a customized news video stream that adapts depending on how much time you have to spare.
We all knew it was only a matter of time before the once dominant BlackBerry would give way to Samsung and Apple devices on Capitol Hill, and it looks like that day is finally here. The U.S. Senate has stopped handing out BlackBerry devices to its staffers, according to Politico. Apparently the launch of the latest BlackBerry device couldn't staunch the winds of change.
No matter for the company's CEO John Chen, who made a promise that the BlackBerry devices would become profitable again.
You wake up and check your phone. Before you go to bed, you send a last-minute email from under the covers. Twenty years ago, doing so much work in your pajamas would have been unthinkable. Now, it's the norm.
And you've got your smartphone to blame. Mobile phones have changed how the law is practiced by your average lawyer perhaps more than any technology since the desktop computer.
Do you remember the public furor and spittle that came out of the iPhone versus FBI battle just a scant few months ago? Do you also remember how momentum behind a national initiative to force phone makers into complying with law enforcement access to encrypted data reached a fever pitch? Whatever happened to that law?
It's dead, or at least effectively so, according to Fortune. And this demonstrates a very interesting point about politics, teeth gnashing and the collective memory. Our politicians don't seem to have the endurance to stick it through.
Last week the FTC knocked on the doors of eight mobile device makers and asked them to provide hard answers regarding their efforts to address or patch the latest security vulnerabilities afflicting your mobile device. Simultaneously, it has also opened the doors to citizens inviting comment to the following general question: "How secure is your device?"
There are a lot of stereotypes that seem to haunt lawyers, including an inability to adapt to the changing times. But a failure to adapt to marketplace changes can be a big business mistake, especially for the solo attorney. As times change, you should be finding that you're spending more time on your mobile device. And that has both good and bad implications.
Corporations, law firms, and small businesses know the mantra all too well: cybersecurity is getting hairier, bloodier, and more complicated with each passing day. The best option may be to hire a third party security firm. But we're still losing the war.
If it's not possible to keep up with all potential attacks, what's to be done? According to the State of the Endpoint Report by Ponemon Institute, many IT departments are focusing on protection after a breach occurs.
Chances are you have a tool in your possession that has fundamentally changed how law is practiced, particularly in the area of gathering evidence: your smartphone.
Cell phones and their recording abilities have completely changed the game. We no longer have to rely on dubious eyewitness accounts of what happened. Now, lawyers don't need to rely on equally dubious accident reports. If you have an auto injury case on your hands, you should be asking your client a simple question first: "Did you take pictures?"
The FBI couldn't really tell Apple how they cracked their phone, even if they wanted to. According to Reuters, the method that was used to crack the infamous Syed Farook iPhone is proprietary and owned by a group of professional hackers outside of the U.S., and certain rules may preclude the government agency from letting Apple in on the secret.
Apple has a strong interest in knowing exactly how the foreign hackers achieved their goal. Before Apple can patch up the security flaw to avoid future hacks of this kind, the company will need to know how the hack was accomplished.