Contract Email Services to Google/Microsoft James L. Turk CAUT Council November 27, 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Insurance in the Cloud Ben Hunter, Canadian Underwriting Specialist Technology Insurance Specialty Chubb Insurance Company of Canada.
Advertisements

Pension Fund Trustees Liability Ncedi Mbongwe. Introduction to Camargue Underwriting Managers Established in 2001 Underwriters: Mutual and Federal and.
IMPORTANT READ CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS PRODUCT LICENSE AGREEMENT AND LIMITED WARRANTY BY INSTALLING OR USING THE SOFTWARE, FILES OR OTHER ELECTRONIC.
Actg 6100 Legal Issues Chapter 3 Courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution.
1 PRIVACY ISSUES IN THE U.S. – CANADA CROSS BORDER BUSINESS CONTEXT Presented by: Anneli LeGault ACC Greater New York Chapter Compliance Seminar May 19,
Jul The New Geant4 License J. Perl The New Geant4 License Makes clear the user’s wide- ranging freedom to use, extend or redistribute Geant4, even.
Procurement Lobbying Legislation New York State Bar Association December 9, 2005 (revised January 4, 2006)
Class 7 Internet Privacy Law Your Digital Afterlife.
Allows FBI to request (from FISA court judges) access to certain business records, including Common carriers (airlines, bus companies, and others in the.
Legislation, Regulation, Guidelines
Business Law for the Entrepreneur and Manager
Insurance Coverage for IT Security Breaches International Technology Law Association San Francisco, CA – May 4, 2006 Steven Brower Stephan Oringher Richman.
Middleware Promises Warranties that Don’t Indemnities that Won’t Stephen Rubin, Esquire
Customer Service Enforcement After AB 2987 John Risk Communications Support Group, Inc. (c) 2006 John Risk Communications Support Group, Inc. (c) 2006.
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW RELATING TO ‘CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS’ Anthony Jucha 30 March 2010.
Privacy and Academic Freedom in the Age of Cloud Computing James L. Turk Executive Director Symposium: Exploring the Future of , Privacy, and Cloud.
DIRC Workshop on Software Quality and the Legal System 13 February 2004, Gray's Inn, London LEGAL ASPECTS OF SOFTWARE PROCUREMENT Jos Dumortier University.
Anticipated 2008 Generic Launches JULY 2008 David Harding, API Intelligence, Thomson Reuters Source: FDA, NEWPORT HORIZON PREMIUM TM © THOMSON REUTERS.
Internet regulation National limits of Internet Content.
Legal Liability of CPAs Chapter 4. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2008 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 4-2 Primary Sources of CPA Liability.
March 17, Open Source Release of NASA Software GSA/GWU Open Source in Government Conference NASA Open Source Legal Team.
MESSAGING IN THE MEDIA TOP 10 DRUGS BASED ON CREDIBILITY INDEX IN THE LITERATURE JOHN KNAPP, DIRECTOR OF ANALYTICS MAY 2009 Your use of these materials.
Legal Liability of Auditors. McGraw-Hill/Irwin © 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved. 4-2 Primary Sources of CPA Liability Breach.
Therapeutic area breakdown of lead projects in development for first launch in 2005 APRIL 2007 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRICS PROGRAM ©
Resume Builder Todd Abel, Microsoft Copyright Notice © 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
CRICOS No J a university for the world real R The OAK Law Project Queensland University of Technology CRICOS No J 1.
Paragraph IV Patent Challenges – As of July 1, 2008 JULY 2008 David Harding, API Intelligence, Thomson Reuters Source: FDA, NEWPORT HORIZON PREMIUM TM.
Proportion of biotech-derived active substances in development for first launch 31st December APRIL 2007 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE.
Legal Issues. Overview Standard Contract Terms of Social Networking Sites Government Content on a Third-Party Site Competitive Procurement Issues First.
International Telecommunication Union New Delhi, India, December 2011 ITU Workshop on Standards and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Issues Philip.
National Alliance for Medical Image Computing Licensing in NAMIC 3 requirements from NCBC RFA (paraphrased)
Legal Disclaimers Accuracy Every effort is made to provide information that is accurate. However any information contained in this website or the “article.
Yes. You’re in the right room.. Hi! I’m David (Hi David!)
Proportion of total R&D expenditure by therapeutic area in 2005 APRIL 2007 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRICS PROGRAM © THOMSON REUTERS Your.
Terms of Service Agreements What does the fine print really contain?
Global R&D expenditure, development times, global pharmaceutical sales and new molecular entity output MARCH 2008 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL.
2005/2006 Expenditure on biotech derived entities had remained constant APRIL 2007 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRICS PROGRAM © THOMSON REUTERS.
Number of pharmaceutical patent applications and granted patents for 5 major patent issuing authorities JUNE 2008 SOURCE: DERWENT WORLD PATENTS.
Intellectual Property. Confidential Information Duty not to disclose confidential information about a business that would cause harm to the business or.
Dino Tsibouris (614) Updates on Cloud, Contracting, Privacy, Security, and International Privacy Issues Mehmet Munur (614)
Regulatory approval times between submission and marketing authorization approval APRIL 2007 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRICS PROGRAM.
Availability of High-Quality API for India, China and Rest of World MARCH 2008 David Harding, API Intelligence, Thomson Reuters Source: NEWPORT HORIZON.
Change Orders, Extras and Claims Presented by Geoffrey Cantello, City of Ottawa.
Data protection—training materials [Name and details of speaker]
Allocation of R&D expenditure in 2005 between chemical entity and biological or biotech active substances APRIL 2007 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE.
Key Legal Considerations for Agencies Wake Forest Business School Charlotte Campus June 12, 2013.
Practical Analysis of Obstacles Encountered by Legal Services as Part of Access to Information Requests Presentation to the Canadian Institute at the Conference.
LEGAL AGREEMENTS AROUND THE WORLD. International legal systems and liability Property and contracts Resolving legal differences Legal Agreements Around.
CHAPTER SIXTEEN The Right to Privacy and Other Protections from Employer Intrusions.
Presented by: Tommy Mays, Legal Counsel Baptist Health Medical Center Health Contracting 101.
Christopher M. McNeill Indemnification—Real Life Stories from the Trenches.
Article 4 [Obligations of Applicant] 4.1. As a sole and exclusive owner of the Application, Applicant warrants that.
PENNSYLVANIA UNIFORM ARBITRATION ACT. Subsection (a), Waiver or variance, starting on line 21, p.17 My Comment: I would like to see added to the “absolute.
Four Ways Suppliers Limit Their Risk Contractually
Nassau Association of School Technologists
Camargue Commercial Crime
Tomotaka Fujita (Japanese MLA) Graduate Schools for Law and Politics
Lecture 28 Intellectual Property(Cont’d)
Legal Liability of CPAs
BIOLOGY / CHEMISTRY CITATIONS GROWTH
Marcus Claridge Director Energy and Water October 2017
Messaging in the Media TOP 10 AUDIENCES BY THERAPY AREA
Spencer County Public Schools Responsible Use Policy for Technology and Related Devices Spencer County Public Schools has access to and use of the Internet.
2006 Revenue continued to depend on a relatively small number of products APRIL 2007 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRICS PROGRAM © THOMSON REUTERS.
, R&D expenditure showed 6% growth annually
Proportion of total R&D expenditure on alliances or joint ventures by stage of R&D in 2005 APRIL 2007 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRICS PROGRAM.
% of the projects in development in the leading therapeutic areas were considered to have a novel mode of action APRIL 2007 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL.
Development time for new molecular entities first launched onto the world market between MARCH 2008 SOURCE: CMR INTERNATIONAL PERFORMANCE METRICS.
Cycle times decreased in larger but not smaller, companies
2019 MEDICARE AGE-IN STUDY SENIOR MARKET INSIGHTS SERVICE Part IV
Presentation transcript:

Contract Services to Google/Microsoft James L. Turk CAUT Council November 27, 2011

Outsourcing to Google/Microsoft Problems Outsourcing to Google or Microsoft exposes academic staff to two dangers: application of American law provisions in the Google contract

Application of US Law All your –- content, transaction data, attachments and all linked information -- become subject to American law with its especially troubling provisions brought in through the USA Patriot Act following 9/11 and other subsequent legislation.

Application of US Law U.S. law … confers express statutory authority for prospective content surveillance of law-abiding faculty members, with neither probable cause, nor a warrant, nor any suspicion of criminality.

Application of US Law - U.S. laws can compel disclosure of information for foreign-intelligence purposes even when the affected faculty member is not suspected of involvement in terrorism or any other criminal activity. - Under U.S. laws, an investigation requiring disclosure of information can be based on the faculty member’s political viewpoint, religious activity, or exercise of academic freedom.

Application of US Law - Under US law, when or other records to which U.S.-linked corporations have access are demanded, the corporation is prohibited from advising the individuals that their records have been requested.

The Contract--Privacy “Information you provide – When you sign up for a Google Account, we ask you for personal information. We may combine the information you submit under your account with information from other Google services or third parties in order to provide you with a better experience and to improve the quality of our services...”Google Accountpersonal information Google Privacy Policy

Definition of “Personal Information” “’Personal information’ is information that you provide to us which personally identifies you, such as your name, address or billing information, or other data which can be reasonably linked to such information by Google.”

Other Definitions in Google Apps for Education Contracts - The “customer” is the university. - “You” refers to the university. -The “end users” are the individual academic staff. -“Customer data” includes all the s and other records posted by individual academic staff (“end users”)

The Contract—Academic Freedom “You agree not to, and not to allow third parties or Your End Users, to use the Services: for any unlawful, invasive, infringing, defamatory, or fraudulent purpose; to violate, or encourage the violation of, the legal rights of others; to use the Services, or a component of the Services, in a manner not authorized by Google

The Contract— Intellectual Property “7.1 … As between the parties, Customer owns all Intellectual Property Rights in Customer Data, and Google owns all Intellectual Property Rights in the Services.” Google Apps for Education Agreement

The Contract—”Governing Law” Each Google contract specifies “governing law”– sometimes California, sometime New York “14.10 Governing Law. This Agreement is governed by California law, excluding that state’s choice of law rules. FOR ANY DISPUTE RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES CONSENT TO PERSONAL JURISDICTION IN, AND THE EXCLUSIVE VENUE OF, THE COURTS IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.” [emphasis in original] The Google Apps for Education Agreement

The Contract - Liability “Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT WILL GOOGLE OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOST DATA, LOST PROFITS, LOST REVENUE OR COSTS OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONTRACT OR TORT (INCLUDING PRODUCTS LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE), AND WHETHER OR NOT SUCH PARTY WAS OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OR ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY STATED HEREIN. IN NO EVENT SHALL GOOGLE'S AND/OR ITS LICENSORS LIABILITY FOR ANY CLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS AGREEMENT EXCEED ONE THOUSAND US DOLLARS ($1000). THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED WITHOUT CHARGE AND THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE FOREGOING LIMITATIONS REPRESENT A REASONABLE ALLOCATION OF RISK UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.”

The Contract—Fees “3.2 Service Term. The initial term for the Service is four years… “3.4 No Fees. Google may charge a fee for the Services after the initial term, and may charge a fee for new functionality or optional enhancements that may be added by Google to the Service. Google may also offer a premium version of the Services for a fee. Prior to Google charging Customer as stated in this section, Google and Customer will negotiate either a new agreement or an amendment to this Agreement. The Google Apps for Education Agreement

Final note Decisions about technological services for academic staff should not primarily be about money nor about access to the latest technological niceties. They should be about the University adopting a means for facilitating communication for its academic staff so as to enhance their ability to do their primary jobs of pursuing knowledge in a way that protects their rights and academic freedom.

References - Simon Bradshaw et al., Contracts for Clouds: Comparison and Analysis of the Terms and Conditions of Cloud Computing Services. Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 63/ N eil Robinson et al, The Cloud: Understanding the Security, Privacy and Trust Challenges. Rand Corporation Bernice Karn, Data Security: The Case Against Cloud Computing. Canadian Privacy Law Review. Vol 8 (No 6), May