Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

IoT - What is it?

No description
by

Jim Williams

on 16 February 2017

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of IoT - What is it?

THE INTERNET OF THINGS
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
What is it? How does it impact my life?
Definition
IoT is the network of physical objects or "things" embedded with electronics, software, sensors, and network connectivity, which enables these objects to collect and exchange data.
"Internet of Things Global Standards Initiative". ITU. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
‘‘these connected objects will act more like a swarm of drones, a distributed legion of bots, far-flung and sometimes even hidden from view but nevertheless coordinated as if they were a single giant machine.’’
Bill Wasik, In the Programmable World, All Our Objects Will Act as One, Wired (May 14, 2013)
Matt Mahon
Certified eDiscovery Specialist
Ricoh USA

The first internet connected appliance. A Coke machine at Carnegie Mellon University. The consumer could inquire about inventory using a computer program.
1982
Kevin Ashton, a brand manager, asked a simple question about lipstick while working for Procter & Gamble. Talks with MIT ensued which led to "smart-packaging" using RFID. The term the Internet of Things was coined.
1999
They estimated the number to reach 25 billion by 2020.
As of February 2015 the FTC estimates there are 25 billion connected devices worldwide.
In 2012 Gartner in their report estimated that there will be 2.9 billion connected devices in the consumer sector in 2015, and 5 billion world wide.

Litigation Impact
Product Liability
IoT Product Malfunctions
Attack from Outside Source
IoT Product Hacked - Personal Data Lost
Will the software developer for an IoT product or handheld device be brought into the equation when an IoT product causes a loss?
Who will play a role in the
allocation of fault
and who will bear the financial consequences?

More Big Questions
What issues of privacy will exist when information collected from an IoT-connected device is sold by the IoT device manufacturer to a third party?

Will the consumer become a target for fault apportionment if it is found that the consumer failed to update security software or used easily hacked passwords or downloaded malware from unsecure sites?
What issues of privacy will develop when litigation is brought and demands are made by potentially liable third parties to examine the device used by the consumer and download its contents?
What issues of privacy will arise when information downloaded from an IoT product is stolen?
Under the traditional principles of strict liability, fault flows up the chain of distribution from the retailer through mid-channel distributors and ultimately to the manufacturer.
The Big Questions
Who will bear the responsibility if the software is vulnerable to an outside attack?
‘‘[T]he deluge of data discoverable in legal actions will dwarf the data tsunami that is seemingly engulfing litigation teams today…. The number of ‘rocks’ that e-discovery professionals will be called upon to collect, analyze and produce data from will be infinite . . . . It will be a brave, new world of digital law and practice.’’
Michelle Lange, How the ‘‘Internet of Things’’ Will Impact
eDiscovery, JDSupra Business Advisor (Mar. 6, 2014)

It is not created by humans;
It does not reflect direct communication;
Device X gathering data about Jim; Ultimately,
Communicating with central database or other device about Jim.

Impact on eDiscovery
Data no longer resides within Device.

Possibly stored in the cloud, where the resulting automated activities with be directed by the AI of the cloud.

Preservation efforts would go beyond placing a litigation hold or flipping the ‘‘off switch’’ of the device itself.

What's the
PROBLEM?
Preservation - Why is it Difficult?
Who Contols the Data?
Preservation - Why is it Difficult?
Spoliation?
Questions to Ponder:
Would flipping the “off switch” on the cloud unduly burden enterprise activity?
How long are historical transmissions retained?
Does the AI irreversibly alter the data?
Where does the releveant data lie?
How is it Different From Common ESI?
What's the Answer?
What Does the Contract Say?
<10%
(facial expressions, vocal tonality, word inflection, etc.)
>90%
"People make meaning through multiple symbol systems."
-Ann Berthoff
EMOJI
Use the
Elements
You Need
Create a
Unique
Prezi
Download this
Prezi Template
from:
http://prezibase.com
Ancient
Thoughts
Applied
to Emojis
MESSAGE?
WHAT IS YOUR...
EMOJIS
Lawsuit Worthy
Cartoons?
Icons?
Punctuation?
Expression?
Misinterpreted?
"If the
was the signature punctuation flourish of
Emoji is the signature generational flourish of the
!
Generation X,
Millennials.
"
-adam sternbergh
Nonverbal Cues
"Is there not another kind of word or speech far better than this, and having far greater power -- a son of the same family, but lawfully begotten?"
-Plato's
Phaedrus
<10%
>90%
Surrogates of
Self
Text Alone?
Lost in Communication?
Word
Content
as...
Signifiers of
Emotion
Mediators of Digital Writing
Clarifiers of
Intent
Authentication
41.5 billion text messages sent around the world each day using

6 billion Emoji!
"LOL"
EMOJIS
Impact of Emoji
Emoticon


Emoji
:)
Authentication
"Emoji is incontrovertibly the world's first truly global form of communication."
Vyvyan Evans
Professor of Linguistics
Bangor University - UK
"As [...] the technology becomes better able to mimic more ordinary or familiar communications, a new literacy spreads across the population."
-Dennis Baron
A Cross-Cultural Comparison on Twitter
Individualistic cultures prefer
horizonal, mouth-centric emoticons
Collectivistic cultures prefer
vertical, eye-centric emoticons
:-)
^_^
- Park et al.
Gender Differences in
Emoji Use
Men used emoticons more frequently in news groups of mixed gender.
- Alecia Wolf
Women used emoticons to express solidarity, support, and assertion of positive feelings and thanks.
Familiarity = Indifference?
"One picture, we are told, is worth a thousand words. But a thousand pictures, especially if they are of the same object, may not be worth anything at all."
- Neil Postman,
Technopoly
Our technical tools, including Emojis, should assist, not prevent,
authentic
human
connections and conversations.
Works Cited

For a full list of
sources, visit:

https://goo.gl/IkH8sy

Todd’s family and medical leave entitlement is due to expire tomorrow. The company’s human resources manager decides to send Todd’s supervisor a text message in order to discuss next steps. Here is the exchange:
A 12-year-old from Fairfax, Va., has been charged with threatening her school after police said she posted a message on Instagram in December laden with gun, bomb and knife emojis. It read in part:
He indicated in some posts the lyrics were art or therapy. In others, he followed posts with the emoticon of a face with its tongue sticking out:
:P

Elonis argued the pictograms proved the posts were jests.

Mary files a complaint with human resources alleging that one of her co-workers is sexually harassing her. A human resources representative sends Mary’s supervisor an email about the complaint. Here is the exchange:
Killing
"meet me in the library Tuesday"
The U.S.. Supreme Court. Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania man, argued that his conviction for threatening his estranged wife via Facebook should be overturned in a case decided last year.
Elonis, in the persona of a rapper, posted graphically violent lyrics about killing his wife on Facebook. His wife said she interpreted the posts as threats, but Elonis argued they were fictitious.
Scenario 1
December 2015
Evil Twin Hotspot
What is ClickJacking?
A method used by an attacker to hide a button, or link, on a legitimate page, using other web content to mask the pages content.

Using well placed graphics, the attacker may be able to persuade a victim to click where the attacker wants clicked on a page.
Evil Twin hotspot is a Wi-Fi access point set up by a hacker or cybercriminal. It is meant to mimic a legitimate hotspot provided by a business, such as a coffee shop that provides free Wi-Fi access to its patrons.
Proportionality: Rule 26(b)(1)

Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense
and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.


Sanctions: Rule 37(e)

(e) Failure to
Preserve

Provide
Electronically Stored Information.
If a party failed to preserve electronically stored information that should have been preserved in the anticipation or conduct of litigation, the court may:

(1) Order measures no greater than necessary to cure the loss of information, including permitting additional discovery; requiring the party to produce information that would otherwise not be reasonably accessible; and ordering the party to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the loss, including attorney’s fees.

(2) Upon a finding of prejudice to another party from loss of the information, order measures no greater than necessary to cure the prejudice.



Proportionality: Rule 26(b)(1)

Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.


Proportionality: Rule 26(b)(1)

Scope in General.
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense

and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.


Rule 26(b) reins in scope creep by clarifying that discoverability does not extend to issues beyond the parties’ claims or defenses, eliminating litigants’ ability to procure broader subject matter discovery for good cause
.
Rule 26(b)(2)(1) places proportionality squarely within the definition of scope of discovery.

Under the rule, even if IoT data is relevant to a claim or defense, its discovery will have to be ....


Although the old Rule 26 also contained a similar provision, the Rules Committee explicitly added the word ‘‘proportional’’ and moved the provision into the definition of scope of discovery in response to observations that the proportionality doctrine had not gained sufficient traction.

Rule 37(e) Restricts the imposition of sanctions—or even curative measures—for lost ESI unless the party seeking relief can show that the responding party failed to take “reasonable steps” to preserve the ESI in the “anticipation or conduct of litigation.’”
(3) Only upon a finding that the party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation:
(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the information was unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.
Sanctions: Rule 37(e) cont'd

(4) In applying Rule 37(e), the court should consider all relevant factors, including :
(A) the extent to which the party was on notice that litigation was likely and that the information would be relevant;
(B) the reasonableness of the party’s efforts to preserve the information;
(C) the proportionality of the preservation efforts to any anticipated or ongoing litigation; and
(D) whether, after commencement of the action, the party timely sought the court's guidance on any unresolved disputes about preserving discoverable information.

Even if the ESI loss stemmed from a party’s failure to take reasonable preservation steps, the Rule permits curative measures and only upon a finding of prejudice to the other party, with sanctions reserved if one ‘‘party acted with the intent to deprive another party of the information’s use in the litigation.’’
IoT and New Rules Governing ESI
Full transcript