Technicool stuff

Hi everyone!

If we speak about the concept "Internet of Things", we could immediately start to think about "The Jetsons", a TV animated sitcom where one of its main characters was a talking robot called "Rosie".

Lexico defines the Internet of Things ("IoT") as

"The interconnection via the Internet of computing devices embedded in everyday objects, enabling them to send and receive data".

It may not seem ordinary, but how if I tell you that you may actually have this kind of system in your home? Nowadays, there are a lot of devices that can accomplish several functions by "interpreting" recollected data. For example, thermostats or security systems, usually related to the concept of "smart homes".

The advantages of IoT are many: allows to automatize the functioning of a house, encourages optimum use of energy, it saves time by efficiently doing the tasks than otherwise a human would do, among others.

Nevertheless, the main disadvantages are related to privacy and data protection, as the functioning of the Internet of Things per se implies data management, it is a possibility that a breach could happen. Since sensitive data flows through many devices, it is actually guaranteed (in the terms & conditions of the device) that would not be known by unauthorised parties? Or that my information would not be used for targeted marketing? (if this is not the reason why I bought the device).

A study of "Ponemon Institute" of May of this year, defines a data breach as

"confirmed incident in which sensitive, confidential or otherwise protected data has been accessed and/or disclosed in an unauthorised fashion. Data breaches may involve protected health information (PHI), personally identifiable information (PII), trade secrets or intellectual property".

Respondents of the same study reported an increment from 15% to 26% of data breaches due to unsecured IoT devices or applications, in three years. However, this number could be more significant since these breaches are not always reported due to the ignorance of its existence.

This study additionally concludes that the landscape of IoT threats is expanding very fast, yet is needed to improve the management of such risks.

In this scenario, it is not unreasonable to think about the purpose of using IoT. It is worthy of having an automatic thermostat if the data about my schedule is going to be poorly managed? I would like to ask Alexa to put some music if later is going to offer me to buy tickets? It is challenging to balance the automatization of the household with the obvious apprehension for privacy protection.

Still, it is clear that more transparency about data management in the IoT devices is needed. This would allow the consumer to properly decide if he/she wants to take “data associated” risks.

Hello everybody!

In this opportunity, I am going to write about content liability in cyberspace. As you might think, this topic raises fundamental questions about responsibility online, particularly about what kind of content could cause a claim and who would be responsible for it.

But first, it is crucial to understand for what content I would be responsible for. One first guess could be pretty much common sense: content that might be a sign of criminal offences or unlawful conducts could definitely cause liability, for example, terrorism, hate or violent speech, illegal filesharing.

After that first mention, one could certainly think about another type of harmful content: defamation. According to Lexico, is 

"The action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel". 

This applies to a person or a corporation as well.

Examples of defamation could be significantly found on the internet. However, the big question about defamation online is about who is responsible for it? Since there is no clear filter for what is published, the liability ends with the author of the defamation? If I am a victim of defamatory content posted on Facebook, could I complain against this platform? Nevertheless, how could I make Facebook responsible if they (probably) don't know about this content?

At this point, it is essential to understand what is Facebook. Facebook, and other platforms such as Tumblr, Blogger, etc., are "Information Society Service Providers" (ISSP), and according to Practical Law, this kind of services are 

"Any service normally provided for remuneration, at a distance, by means of electronic equipment for the processing (including digital compression) and storage of data, and at the individual request of a recipient of a service".

As they are ISSP, it is applicable for them the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000/31/EC. As stated by article 15 of this Directive, 

"Member States shall not impose a general obligation on providers, when providing the services covered by Articles 12, 13 and 14, to monitor the information which they transmit or store, nor a general obligation actively to seek facts or circumstances indicating illegal activity". 

Returning to the questions in the prior paragraph, this means that the platform in which the defamatory content was published, would not be responsible for not monitor this content.

Still, the platform should consider reacting after being notified of the existence of this kind of content. The case of "Godfrey v Demon Internet Service" (seen in class) teaches us that, as the service provider (Demon) could not be responsible for publishing the defamatory content, it should be responsible for not removing this content after being notified of its existence by the victim. 

This is the main reason why all ISSP should have prepared teams for this kind of requirements. However, are these platforms adequately prepared to attend these demands?

I. Few years ago.

I remember when I was little (a lot of years ago), the mission of obtaining and downloading different kinds of media (music, movies, tv-series) was very difficult. After coming back from school I spent a lot of entire afternoons downloading content (mainly music, books and of course a few viruses) without any restriction. It only took me just one click of distance between my computer and a world of content for free (really important matter if you are a student and have no incomes).

Later (not so many years ago) I tried to download a very useful software for writing purposes for free, however, it was impossible. I even used a couple of “aces under my sleeve” websites to try to obtain that precious software, but suddenly I realized it was a waste of time.

At first, I thought that I’ve turned an “old” person. Ok, actually I was older than those glorious days, but my use of the O word -old- was different. When I say that I realized that I have become older I mean that I couldn’t use properly my computer (or the internet) to obtain something that was very easy to get in the past. The equivalent of becoming an old person.

Nevertheless, the idea of getting content for free seemed to be ok for me. Today I could not agree with that idea, at least totally.

II. What is intellectual property?

According to Lexico, intellectual property is 

“Intangible property that is the result of creativity, such as patents, copyrights, etcetera”.

 It is possible to obtain the main features of intellectual property from that definition:

1. It is one type of property: gives to the owner the right to possess, use or dispose.

2. It is intangible: it cannot be "touched" or "felt".

3. It is a result of creativity: an act of creation.

As it was taught in class, intellectual property encourages innovation and creativity since it allows the owners of the right to dispose of it in a way that suits them best (probably lucratively). At the same time, intellectual property encourages investment that probably would not occur if it was not profitable for the owners of the work or the investors.

Nowadays, as a result of several laws that have enforced it, besides the work and development of different institutions and organizations on the matter, intellectual property is more protected and the infractions to it are more likely to be prosecuted.

III. Is intellectual property that good?

At first glance, it seems like intellectual property is a “good thing”, because who wants a world without creativity and innovation? And it gets even better if someone can make a living of it.

Nonetheless, it is actually profiting the only reason why someone would create? I like to think that creation would still happen because it does not necessarily answer to monetary reasons. In that case, the right to restrict the access of a creation to the entire population merely for monetary concerns, is it solidly justified?

As a young teenager with no money, accessing the internet (and the different content protected by law) was a way to see the world, to learn, to educate and culturize myself when going to school and watching TV was not enough. I hope that this door is not closed to the generations after me.

Or maybe they just know where to download stuff.