John Naughton’s post Does Skype have a back door in Memex 1.1 echoes what I was told by my brother-in-law (ex Norwegian Telewerken and NATO), who insisted, when I first got Skype, that it was not secure: and he has always refused to use it. That was three plus years ago. It would be interesting to hear a little more. Like John Naughton, I use Skype for family, but never for anything sensitive.
Category: Uncategorized
Liberal? Don’t make me laugh
If there is any truth in Stephen Pollard’s post in Spectator.co.uk, EXCLUSIVE: Baroness Tonge and Terrorists, and there is no reason to believe that what he says is other than the truth ~ after all, she already has form ~ then not only should Nick Clegg immediately remove the LibDem whip from Baroness Tonge, but she should consider whether there is any place for her in the public life of this country. On reflection, she may consider that there is not, and spare us any further anger.
The BlackBerry bites back
An interesting string of comments to the article in Legal Week about Links asking its partners and associates to take a BlackBerry break, which I commented on in BlackBerry as fig leaf earlier in the week.
A selection will give you a flavour:
I have to say that in this day and age, Blackberries are a must have for the providers of legal services. Stay ahead of the game! As I said yesterday, I will be taking my Blackberry everywhere with me whilst on holiday in sunny southern Europe. If you need me, you will find me sitting under water in the deep end of the swimming pool happily answering clients’ emailed enquires. Mark my words. A Clerk
I hadn’t heard about it either but spoke to one of the partners and they said it came in about a month ago. Not that it’s going to make any difference as you still have to have your mobile phone on! Anonymous
Since when? I work at Linklaters and have never heard of this new policy! Anonymous
I think it’s more to do with the costs associated with everyone checking their personal e-mails, Facebook account and surfing the web whilst abroad – I’m sure that’s not cheap to fund in these ‘credit-crunching’ times! Anonymous
Or possibly just posting comments on the Legal Week site!
China law
It is all too easy for lawyers in the West to be oblivious to the fact that the access to justice and the rule of law that, by and large, we enjoy in the Western democracies are not available to millions of our fellow citizens elsewhere in the world. With the Beijing Olympics now little over a fortnight away, Jamil Anderlini’s article in FT.com, Rewards and risks of a career in the legal system, offered a corrective to our all too often blinkered outlook.
In it he highlights the position in China, contrasting the very different professional experiences of Teng Biao, an activist lawyer on the outskirts of Beijing, and Tao Jingzhou, a partner in Jones Day’s Beijing office.
The realities of living in a totalitarian state also lend uncertainty to the legal system. Opportunities abound for powerful individuals to intervene, says He Weifeng, an outspoken legal professor at Peking University. “Actually, there is no real legal system in the western sense in China,” he declares.
Enforcement of existing legislation is often lax – something that becomes apparent when you compare China’s excellent environmental laws with the reality outside the window or read the country’s constitution, which guarantees all citizens freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of political association. In criminal cases and high-profile civil cases, political interference is rife, while in smaller cases bribing judges and prosecutors is the norm.
“The biggest problem with China’s legal system is that politics and the law are not separate,” says Mr Teng. “An independent judiciary is not possible under the current system because the law is regarded as a tool to serve the party.”
Overstuffed inboxes (or Law and technology 2)
The second article that caught my eye in Wired this month was Clive Thompson’s The Great American Timesuck. The article was singing the praises of AI-equipped email monitors like Xobni and ClearContext (which somehow I don’t think my IT manager would like, although he will be spared my trying to download either as we run on a thin-client system).
What caught my eye were the following paragraphs,
Artificial intelligence in the service of life-hacking: It’s the future of email.
And God knows we need a better future for email, because the present is intolerable. This once-miraculous productivity tool has metastasized into one of the biggest timesucks in American life. Studies show that there are 77 billion corporate email messages sent every day, worldwide. By 2012, that number is expected to more than double. The Radicati Group calculates that we already spend nearly a fifth of our day dealing with these messages; imagine a few years down the road, when it takes up 40 percentof our time. “It’s madness,” says Merlin Mann, who runs 43Folders.com, a leading productivity blog. “We’re all desperately trying to figure out how to cut stuff so we can get through the day, and it just gets harder and harder.” (Mann advocates dealing with incoming messages immediately so your inbox is always empty. Me [Thompson], I’ve got 12,802 messages in there right now.)
Why has email spun so badly out of control? Because it’s asymmetric — incredibly easy to send but often devilishly burdensome to receive.
For lawyers, where email is the preferred mode of communication, the above is all too true, and we are all having to deal with the problem of overstuffed inboxes.