SBOT Computer & Technology Section

Another article in this month’s Texas Bar Journal by Section Council members Jason Smith, Ron Chichester and Michael Peck.

If after reading this, you’re feeling a little insecure, consider join the Computer & Technology Section at the State Bar Annual Meeting in Dallas in June for a live presentation on this topic during the Adaptable Lawyer Legal Innovation track. This will include a hands-on workshop where thumb drives preloaded with mobile apps and TrueCrypt will be provided to attendees along with step-by-step instructions on creating encrypted files. For information on booking this session for your own event, please contact Council@sbot.org.

A question was posed by one of our council members:

Has anybody had any experience with the Transporter private cloud device? It sounds like something that could address many of the security concerns we have about cloud storage.

The Transporter requires a minimum of 160GB 2.5″ SATA hard drive, and will accept up to 2 TB. It can be ordered with no hard drive ($199), 1 TB ($299) or 2TB ($399), plus $10 shipping. Is there any reason a SATA SSD would not work, rather than relying on a spinning disk hard drive?

To which Council Member Craig Ball replied:

The Transporter is much better looking than its predecessors; but it’s been possible to purchase NAS devices that replicate over the net for years (the idea being that you locate them at different facilities for disaster recovery and fail over). These could also be configured for privileged-based remote browser access. The Transporter appears to offer no additional features or advantages except for being handsome. Neither does it equal the cloud in terms of significantly reducing the risk of certain types of data loss.

For example:
1. The Cloud offers greater physical security than any of us likely employ in our homes or offices. Anyone can get into my home or lab with a rock and a fixed intention. I think it would be tougher to invade one of Amazon’s data centers, and it would surely be MUCH harder to carry off all my data from AWS or Azure, even with physical access. Anyone can grab a Transporter and run.

2. Both the Cloud and the Transporter face the web, so either can be remotely hacked.

3. The Cloud offers protection against regional physical risks that might effect the Transporters. If I use a Transporter in my home and office, both locations are likely subject to the same regional disasters (hurricane, flood, wildfire, sustained power interruption, etc.–you know, like living in NYC).

4. A failure of a single disk device is inevitable, but hopefully won’t occur to both devices at the same time. However, a system based on two single drives in identical enclosures is statistically far more prone to such failure than a RAIDed and replicated system in a data center. Because both devices use the same web-facing software, firmware and hardware, a robust attack that destroys one will probably destroy the other one, too.

In the final analysis, I think it’s a nifty product, and probably far superior to managing a tape-based backup system for those who store modest volumes of data. But, I don’t share the view that the Transporter compares favorably against professionally-managed and secure Cloud systems.

As for the SSD issue, the throughput from a conventional drive and from an SSD are both faster than the network bandwidth for the device, so you likely wouldn’t see notably improved data delivery. SSDs cost significantly more and, so far, appear to have shorter overall lifespans (even with TRIM and wear leveling) than conventional electromagnetic drives. So, you could go to SSD, but you’d make the product less price-competitive.

Got an opinion? Feel free to comment below or send a response to our Council directly (let us know if we have permission to repost in case we find it post-worthy).

Charles Hughes Smith (OfTwoMinds) has posted a very interesting short article (with charts) regarding innovation and the ability to profit from that innovation.

You should read the article, but for the impatient, I would summerize it as follows: As innovation spreads, and skills become more widely available (worldwide), the ability for one company to maintain a large “profit gap” over its competition diminishes more rapdily. In other words, with more of the planet able to compete with American companies, it stands to reason that the profit margin that those US companies used to achieve will not last as long. Commoditization has become institutionalized.

As an example, he sites Apple and the premium that it used to command over devices running the Microsoft operating system. Today, however, even though the iPad and iPhone created a new category in the tech industry, Google has been able to make comparable (or arguably better) devices for half the cost in just a few years.

Smith’s observation echos that of Daniel Boorstin in “The Discoverers” who noted that the speed and expense of communication set the pace for learning and innovation. The obvious example of that observation is the changes wrought by the Internet.

This increased pace of innovation highlights a conundrum for patent attorneys. As the pace of innovation increases, the “lag time” between when a technology is developed and when it gets patented becomes more accute. In other words, in a fast-paced (innovative) industry, patents get issued after the profit differential (per Smith) has disappeared along with the utility of that patent. Picking up scraps for that patent is left to the patent trolls. Perhaps in those fast-pased industries, a patent registration system or a deferred adjudication system (like Japan) might be a better fit.

Love the cloud for data storage, but hate the security issues and recurring fees? You might consider The Transporter, a Kickstarter funded private cloud device, that allows remote file sharing and retrieval. Learn more here.

Family Law Technology CLE Wrapup, Austin, Texas
by mark i. unger

On December 13-14, 2012, members of the State Bar of Texas Computer & Technology section participated in the first ever Family Law Technology CLE “From No Tech to High Tech” in Austin, Texas.

This seminar, which was held at the AT&T Executive Conference Center on the University of Texas Campus was a full two day survey course designed to educate family and general practitioner’s on a massive array of legal technology facing them today and for the next several years.  The lineup consisted of a mind-bending array of presenters, including the veteran Wisconsin-based, Ross Kodner, who presented on the Paperless office, as well as 60 Legal Tech Tips, Apps, Gadgets & Sites in 60 Minutes, along with the well-reputed Mark Greenwald.

Michael Curran, Al Harrison and Ron Chichester donated their time to provide ‘Techxpertise’ on the Section App for Texas Attorneys (which allows attorneys upon signing up as a member of the section for $25, to download over 60 Codes, Statutes and Rules to their iPad, Droid Tablet or for access from any Desktop computer).

Presenting from the section Council at the seminar were the following along with the presentation topics:

Craig D. Ball (“Spoiled and Deluded : Things You’ll Wish You Didn’t Know About Electronic Search in eDiscovery”)

Ronald L. Chichester (“Cybersleuthing Without Losing Your Law License”)

Al Harrison (“Cybersleuthing Without Losing Your Law License”)

Mark I. Unger (“Looking Beyond the Horizon: What will Technology Look Like in the Future”; “Practical Considerations,” “Essential Apps for Family Law Practice,” and “Electronic Trial Demonstration.”)

Additional Presentations were made by the following Section members:

Hon. Dean Rucker

Peter Vogel

Rick Robertson

Reggy Hirsch

Tom Mighell

Craig Haston

Debra Bruce

John Browning

Tom Vick