Google Simplifies Its Privacy Policies

Google has always tried to make things easier for its worldwide users cum admirers, if we may say so. It once again tries to win the hearts of its followers. How ? Has anybody ever tried reading what the Privacy Policies in a Google’s webpage comprise of ? Many would say no. Google is rewriting its Privacy Policy and making it simpler for their regular user.

“Long, complicated and lawyerly—that’s what most people think about privacy policies, and for good reason. Even taking into account that they’re legal documents, most privacy policies are still too hard to understand,” Mike Yang, Associate General Counsel at Google, said..

“So we’re simplifying and updating Google’s privacy policies. To be clear, we aren’t changing any of our privacy practices; we want to make our policies more transparent and understandable,” he makes clear.

via Google Simplifies Its Privacy Policies.

Best-practice planning for e-discovery

Some US litigators saw the problem coming, but not that many did much about it. Old paper-based discovery regulations and practices just aren’t equipped to deal with the growing mass of digital files and email correspondence that is generated in corporate offices every day. Correspondence with external counsel is generally privileged, of course, but everything else that could be relevant to a case has to be gathered, sorted and offered up, should the worst occur and a discovery request hits the legal department’s desk.

But e-discovery expert Jonathan Redgrave believes that many lawyers are making it worse on themselves by sticking their heads in the sand about the whole issue. As with much of law, he says, preparation is key.

A thirst for information

Redgrave started his career working on civil trial and appellate matters at Minneapolis-based law firm Gray Plant Mooty, before making his name in high-profile litigation work at international law firm Jones Day. He says it was his experiences of managing discovery requirements on major international tobacco cases that first drew him to e-discovery – that and a love for technology itself. ‘Data privacy, discovery records management… it’s the space where technology and law meet that I find so fascinating,’ he explains.

Redgrave’s next role, as head of Nixon Peabody LLP’s information-law practice, gave him ample access to that space. He believes that few companies have been afforded the advice they need to create robust programmes for records management and disposal. ‘The parameters as to what to preserve, collect and disclose are not fully clear,’ he says. ‘And while courtrooms and corporate law departments are playing catch-up, technology is continuing to evolve.

‘For example, social media and cloud computing technologies are having a major impact on the ways in which we work. But, while employees profit from the freedom that these services afford, businesses and even the government are left scratching their heads when it comes to recording, storing or producing conversations or files that were shared on those systems.’

But Redgrave emphasises that e-discovery isn’t just about sifting through electronic correspondence to get a handle on what’s been said and to whom. ‘Companies also need to know, for example, what it will mean if data is accidentally lost or destroyed,’ he says. ‘Or what content they can safely delete from their systems without having to worry about facing repercussions down the line.’

To do this, Redgrave believes that you need to look forward as well as back: ‘Ask yourself “What will the workplace look like in 10 years’ time?” and “How will we be communicating and sharing data?” I think that current working practices are going to be almost unrecognisable in a decade, and legal departments need to start thinking about the impact of that on their e-discovery requirements now.’

The legal industry is hardly celebrated for being an early adopter of technology, and Redgrave says that this lack of understanding about current systems and future trends is also hampering some corporation’s e-discovery efforts. It was partly this that led him to work with others to set up the e-discovery working group of The Sedona Conference think-tank, a not-for-profit research and educational institute that pulls together leading lawyers, judges, academics and other legal professionals to discuss, study and help establish guidelines and standards in key areas of US law.

via Best-practice planning for e-discovery.

Why Aren’t Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Drooling Over Recent Toyota Revelations? – Law Blog – WSJ

You’d think that the slew of Toyota revelations – incriminating emails about cover-ups, for instance – would leave plaintiffs’ attorneys licking their litigious chops.

But the revelations from last week and documented here in today’s New York Times have landed with a thud among the realm of attorneys who have filed dozens of suits against Toyota seeking to hold it responsible for sudden unintended acceleration events.

The NYT story, and others that came before it, quote an email from a Toyota executive that says, “I hate to break this to you but we have a tendency for mechanical failure in accelerator pedals of a certain manufacturer on certain models.” In past weeks, internal documents that came to light have boasted of a $100 million in savings for the Japanese auto maker by limiting a 2007 floor mat recall to 55,000 vehicles.

Lawyers on the plaintiffs’ side however are fixated on electronics being to blame for Toyota vehicles accelerating out of control. It’s a charge Toyota has vehemently denied. So why aren’t attorneys jumping for joy at what seems like it could be a couple of smoking guns?

The cynical side of us says the answer may be in the payout. If electronics are to be blamed, the number of plaintiffs is considerably larger, affecting not only the recalled vehicles but those with electronic systems in models dating to 2002.

The damages then would be much bigger, meaning a bigger payday for the lawyers. To be clear, if electronics are to blame Toyota has a much bigger problem on its hands as recalling the electronics in its vehicles could be far more expensive than recalls involving not much more than removing a floor mat.

via Why Aren’t Plaintiffs’ Lawyers Drooling Over Recent Toyota Revelations? – Law Blog – WSJ.

Your Car May Know If A Crash Is Your Fault : NPR

Most people aren't aware that their cars contain black boxes. But collecting electronic information that helps reveal exactly what happened inside a vehicle prior to a crash is becoming an increasingly important concern for law enforcement, insurance companies and traffic safety engineers.

About 60 percent of vehicles contain “event data recorders,” or EDRs, which work more or less like black boxes on airplanes. They record information such as how fast the vehicle was going and how well the brakes and airbags worked — or didn’t.

Black boxes in cars are now getting more attention, given the controversy surrounding sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles.

Safety advocates say they provide impartial information that is crucial to researchers studying ways to prevent future accidents, as well as manufacturers looking to improve performance. As with many such technologies, however, privacy concerns have been an issue.

via Your Car May Know If A Crash Is Your Fault : NPR.