Sound Quality versus Privacy – What is more important to a lawyer in a smart speaker?

Sound Quality versus Privacy – What is more important to a lawyer in a smart speaker?

MacRumors came out with an article comparing the mini-smart speakers currently on the market.  The candidates are the Amazon's Echo, Apple’s Homepod mini and Google's Nest Audio. They all retail for about $99.  It looks like hands down the Echo and Nest beat the Homepod-mini for quality and depth of music.

The audio specs break down:

• Echo: 76mm woofer and two 20mm tweeters.

• ‌HomePod mini‌: Full range driver and dual passive radiators.

• Nest Audio: 75mm woofer and one 19mm tweeter.

BUT IS SOUND QUALITY WORTH THE TRUE “COST” OF THE DEVICE:

Certainly, if you are vested in the Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant platforms, I can see the draw to remain in the respective platforms’ microverse.  But sound quality and smart-assistant integration are not THE major concern for attorneys – It’s Privacy!

Amazon Alex and Google Assistant do not have a great reputation for protecting your privacy.  Apple Homepods have had its share of fairly recent problems too!  But Apple’s Siri is more active in protecting your privacy.  The inherency of its “sandboxed” software makes it more likely prying eyes 👀 (or in this case ears 👂🦻!) will not be obtaining your private or your client’s confidential information!

PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY ALERT!
Remember, the Model Rules of Professional Conduct require you have to be both competent in your use of technology in your office Rule 1.1 [8] and take reasonable efforts to ensure your client’s information is protected, Rule 1.6 (c).

Granted, I am a Mac user in my private practice.  So, I would naturally gravitate toward Homepods.  But I do use Windows machines when it comes to the blog.  And IMHO the overall risk right now in buying an Amazon Alexa or Google Assistant is just not worth risk – even with the discounts you may be finding on Amazon!

MTC

Happy Lawyering!!!

The Presidential Election is Over – Now What (at least as it has to do with our law-office technology needs)?

Courtrooms are going to be empty for a while until this Pandemic is under control; are you professionally competent to be Virtual!

This blog is not about politics.  But regardless of your politics, we could not escape the noise from the recent election.  It has added a lot of stress for everyone.  While the pressure is not entirely over (and may not be entirely over for many days, months, or years), we always need to be focused on our law-practice obligations.  So, as I asked in my headline:  Now What (at least as it has to do with our office technology needs)?

Nothing.  We still need to maintain tech competence in our work.  We are still dealing with an ongoing pandemic.  You may feel your rights are being violated by having to wear a mask, keeping social distance from others, and appear in places by video. But businesses, courts, and law offices are not moving back to full-time in-person office work-life, depositions, or hearings for the foreseeable future.

First, the Pandemic is not over.  The possible vaccine is not out yet and the means of distribution has not been established.  And that whole process will likely take many (not a couple) of months if not at least a year.

Second, businesses, law firms, and courthouses are realizing there is great time-saving convenience and effectiveness in conducting business, hearing, depositions, etc., remotely.  No travel, no traffic, no hassle!

Lastly, $MONEY$!  Everyone is realizing that video conferencing is saving a lot of MONEY!  Law firms do not need to have everyone in the office for work to be accomplished – this cuts down on overhead – office space, associated furnishing, associated liability insurance, associated electric and internet, time-money loss traveling to and from work every day, and so on.  Lawyers, like any business, are capitalists.

It is the nature of the capitalist beast to make money by saving money.  And it is clear our capitalist society is beginning to adapt to the virtual world (especially since the Pandemic is not going away anytime soon).  Granted, not everything can be done remotely.  But we are still young in this new millennium and have only tapped into what technology can do.  Time will only allow technology to 1. Advance even more and 2. Decrease in costs.  This will likely produce a more virtual legal world that our ethics requires us to be prepared.  Are you ready?

To learn more follow my blog, listen to my podcasts and if you find you need more personal one-on-one help, reach out to me.  I do offer services to help other attorneys one-on-one – in person or virtually.

MTC

First Amendments Rights versus Security – What side should an attorney be on when it comes to his firm's software.

Last week, I discussed educational bodies banning photos taken at school from being posted on social media – “Self- Awareness in the Wild, Wild West World of Zoom” (posted September 14, 2020).  There are inherent First Amendment rights issues:  Students’ ability to talk openly with the public about what they think about their school, classmates, and faculty versus other students’ ability to have open discussions of thoughts, popular or not, without the fear of public scrutiny and (verbal and physical) threats.  Now the Courts have provided us a new lens to discuss this balance.

CNN reports that a Federal Judge in California has stayed the Government’s download ban of WeChat in the United States.  WeChat is a popular social chat application (app) that allows people to talk around the world.  The Plaintiffs note that WeChat is one of the very few chat apps that the Chinese Government allows to be used in its country.  Plaintiffs argue that their ability to communicate with others in China will be significantly interfered with if the ban were to be allowed.  The Government contends that there is a security risk, and its use should not be allowed in the U.S.  The judge determined that at this point, the Government has not provide[d] enough evidence that it is narrowly tailored to resolve the US government's national security concerns with respect to the app.  So, the ban is stayed, for now.  But, the question that needs to be asked by attorneys is, what does this mean for us?

Obviously, if a software program is banned in the U.S., we cannot use it:  It’s illegal.  But our concerns go beyond just whether or not software, hardware, or cloud service is “banned” in the U.S.  We need to consider whether it is safe to use.  Rule 1.6(c) requires us to secure our clients’ confidential information.  Rule #1.1, Comment, #8, requires us to be up to date in our knowledge of technology and how we use it to practice law (or at least have third party assistance in its use).  The concern for attorneys should be when pieces of technology have glaring red flags that they may want to find another platform to do their clients’ work.  Otherwise, they may find themselves with a bar complaint or two?

MTC