Blog Post

Xiang Qi

The Silicon Valley was never a fan of Trump’s presidency and once again, they are making their disagreement heard to the White House. Soon after the White House announced its controversial travel ban last week, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick was under pressure during his regular meeting at Uber headquarter in San Francisco when he was encountered by at least two employee asking what it takes for him to quit the advisory council. Like Mr. Kalanick, Peter Thiel, who is on the board of Facebook, has been under pressure for his role in the Trump administration.

Thanks to Mr. Kalanick’s involvement in the Advisory Board, Uber’s arch-rival, Lyft, is happily taking customers away from Uber as there have been over 200,000 Uber customers deleting their accounts recently.

As a result of all the internal and external pressure on him and Uber, Mr. Kalanick has exited the advisory council and in his letter voiced his support for refugees and a open immigration reform. Although it may be his business interest that motivated Mr. Kalanick to join the Presidential Advisory Council in the first place, like many other tech company CEOs also on the Council, the disfavor of Trump administration’s policy might harm his personal reputation as well as Uber’s business interests in the end. So far, the Silicon Valley is still debating the way that works best for the companies to deal with a Trump administration.

Mike Isaac, Uber C.E.O. to Leave Trump Advisory Council After Criticism, NEW YORK TIMES, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/technology/uber-ceo-travis-kalanick-trump-advisory-council.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Ftechnology&action=click&contentCollection=technology&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=sectionfront (last visited February 3, 2017).

Emma Fusco

Amazon and Expedia are the first two technology companies to oppose the immigration order as part of a lawsuit against the Trump Administration.  Their main issue: the order will hurt their business.  The suit asks the court to declare key parts of the executive order unconstitutional.

The order impairs both Expedia’s and Amazon’s ability to recruit and hire employees from overseas, which may undermine both, travel companies and international businesses.

This immigration ban has lit a fire in the hearts of many tech executives, as they too were once immigrant refugees.  Expedia’s chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi, fled his home country of Iran after the revolution in 1978.  “Ours is a nation of immigrants.  These are our roots, this is our soul.  All erased with the stroke of a pen.”

Though the lawsuit rests mainly on employment issues, there is a bigger picture here: people who are employed by these companies are now banned from their homes in the US, where their entire life is.

Employees of Google rallied at Google’s headquarters, making the Mountain View, California reminiscent of a college campus.  The quad swarmed with employees protesting the order.  Some signs said “Trump, Don’t Be Evil” and “Silicon Valley: Built by Immigrants.”  Silicon Valley, which has produced some of Trump’s favorite media platforms like Twitter, was created ground up by immigrants from countries the executive order has banned.  

At the protest was Google’s Co-founder, Sergey Brin, who came to the United States as a 6-year-old refugee when the wage of nuclear war was at its peak between the Soviet Union and the United States.  “I wouldn’t be where I am today or have any kind of life I have today if this wasn’t a great country that stood up and spoke for liberty.”

Nick Wingfield and Daisuke Wakabayashi, Amazon and Expedia Join Lawsuit Against Immigration Order as Tech’s Resistance Grows, N.Y. Times, Jan, 31, 2017), at A20.

Lishayne King

The ban of individuals from a number of largely Muslim countries has many struggling to grapple with the ban’s consequences and ramifications. The ban is of particular concern to the scientific community, as the ban “could hinder research, affect recruitment of top scientists and dampen the free exchange of scientific ideas.” The president of the Association of American Universities, Mary Sue Coleman, estimated that “there were about 17,000 students from the seven countries at American universities.” The ban has led some universities with students and faculty members from the seven named countries to advise against travel outside of the United States for an indefinite period. Conferences and scientific meetings within the United States, as well as abroad, stand to be affected. There is now the possibility that those important to the scientific community may not be able to return. Also affected by the Executive Order are eleven patients from the seven named countries in need of medical treatment. Some patients who travel from the Middle East to the United States need the treatment available in the United States because of an inability to access such treatment in their home countries, and due to these medical reasons, may not be able to wait.

Henry Fountain, Science Will Suffer Under Trump’s Travel Ban, Researchers Say, N.Y. Times, (Jan. 30, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/science/scientists-donald-trump-travel-ban.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience&action=click&contentCollection=science&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=7&pgtype=sectionfront.

Samantha Cirillo

As early as 1995, hundreds of children in the Indian town of Muzzaffarpur die each year from an unknown disease. [1] Every year the outbreak began in mid-May as the temperatures grew and ended during Monsoon season in late-July. [2] In 2014, 390 children were admitted into the hospital and 122 died. [3]

Researchers and medical experts were unable to pin the cause of the children’s illness until now. On Tuesday January 31, 2017, a study was published in the British Journal, The Lancet Global Health, conducted by India’s National Center for Disease Control and the India office of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. [4] The study found that the disease was caused by malnourished children eating Lychee Fruit. [5]

Dr. Rajesh Yadav, an investigator for India Epidemic Intelligence Service, was a leading researcher of the outbreak. Dr. Yadav collected over 300 biological samples and found that the infected children had dangerously low blood sugar levels. [6] Around the same time as Yadav’s study, a similar outbreak was occurring in the West Indies called the “Jamaican vomiting disease” that was linked to the high level of hypoglycin found in ackee fruit located in the area. [7] The hypoglycin inhibits the body’s ability to synthesize glucose which leads to extremely low blood sugar levels. [8] After comparing the outbreaks, Yadav conducted several laboratory tests that found similar levels of hypoglycin in the Lychee fruit. [9] Muzaffarpur grows 70% of India’s lychee harvest. [10]

In 2015, the Center for Disease Control was able to test the affected children’s urine to measure hypoglycin levels. [11] Nearly all of the children infected had consumed lychee within the past 24 hours and skipped an evening meal causing night-time hypoglycemia. [12] The lychee fruit that several children in the area consume contained seeds that lead to low blood sugar and brain inflammation. [13]

After the study was complete, the results pointed to the lychee fruit as the cause of the recent outbreak. Researchers instructed parents to limit children’s consumption of lychee fruit and to provide children with evening meals. [14] The study and outreach has reduced the level of cases significantly.

         

[1] Ellen Barry, Dangerous Fruit: Mystery of Deadly Outbreaks in India Is Solved, New York Times, (Jan. 31, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/world/asia/lychee-litchi-india-outbreak.html?_r=0.
[2] Id.
[3] Juliet Perry, Killer Fruit? Lychee cause of mysterious disease that plagued Indian town, CNN (Feb. 1, 2017), http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/health/lychee-fatal-illness-india/index.html.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Barry, supra note 1.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Barry, supra note 1.
[12] Perry, supra note 3.
[13] Id.
[14] Barry, supra note 1.

Jeffrey Cullen

Today, there are many security threats to the well being of individuals, corporations, governments, and entities of all kinds. The method of gaining access to secured information has shifted to means of cybercrime and has become significantly effective. Each year, organizations experience data breaches resulting in compromised records of financial and personal information.[1]

Since January 2015, over $3 billion of damages have resulted from cyber attacks in the form of CEO email scams alone.[2] This year, the spending on security products worldwide is estimated to reach over $81 billion due to the increasingly complicated threats of hackers.[3] There are many types of hackers who attempt to gain finances and information for various reasons. Hacktivists, terrorists, and state-backed hackers have different motives and objectives in the acquisition and dissemination of our information. It is increasingly difficult to distinguish perpetrators of virtual crimes however; many of these crimes begin in the same way, often with a prompt. It is vital that security companies employ personnel who are capable of improving security features at the same rate to which hackers are evolving, and to identify and eliminate dangers right when they appear.

 

[1] Steve Ranger, Cybercrime and cyberwar: A spotter’s guide to the groups that are out to get you, ZDNet (Sept. 1, 2016), http://www.zdnet.com/article/cybercrime-and-cyberwar-a-spotters-guide-to-the-groups-that-are-out-to-get-you/.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

Aiden Scott

Zero-rating is a practice that occurs when ISP’s allow consumers to visit certain websites, or use certain apps without impacting their monthly data limits. Companies such as T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon have all been part of a yearlong investigation that has been conducted by the FCC. The FCC noted that AT&T and Verizon’s approaches to zero-rating pose a particular threat to net neutrality because the companies choose to exempt their own services from counting against subscriber’s monthly data limits. AT&T has attempted to defend what it calls its “Sponsored Data service” by stating that it offers the same terms to all businesses that want to participate.Similarly, Comcast has also come under fire by giving its Stream TV service a significant connectivity advantage over other programs. While Comcast grants its service higher connectivity through a dedicated line in its customer’s cable connection, the issue that still worries consumer advocates such as Public knowledge is that allowing ISP’s to treat certain websites, and apps differently will ultimately be harmful to the consumer.

See Brian Fung,  The FCC is Dropping its Probe Into Internet Providers Over This Controversial Practice, Wash Post, (Feb. 3, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/02/03/the-government-is-dropping-its-probe-into-a-controversial-practice-by-your-internet-provider/?utm_term=.a803c74f6d90

Annie Millar

In the 21st century news reporters rely heavily on technology. Computers and cellphones are the tools required to get information to the public as fast as possible. Without the opportunity to send out information quickly, reporters would be at a disadvantage. But, reporters face issues when waltzing into a federal court house.

Mike Isaac experienced this first hand when he excitedly walked into a courtroom in Dallas, Texas. Stopped by a United States Marshal, Isaac’s continuous twitter feed of Mark Zuckerberg’s time on the stand skidded to a halt. Mr. Zuckerberg was involved in a $2 billion intellectual property lawsuit for the theft of virtual reality technology and Isaac was driven to tweet the details of his testimony as quickly as possible.

Little did Isaac know, “[f]ederal courts have rather strict rules around electronics and recording devices inside courtrooms, the laws of which go back much further than some of the software and services we use to broadcast news today.”

As a result, this issue demonstrates the age old battle; old customs versus budding technology. It is clear that federal courtrooms do not want live streams, videos, or photographs taken by reporters in the courtroom. It is also clear that reporters want full access to trial, as well as the ability to inform the public in real time. As it currently stands, the federal courts are clearly winning.

As an intern in a federal district courthouse this past summer, I saw issues of this nature first hand. The entrances were littered with signs, indicating cell phones were strictly prohibited. Additionally United States Marshals were continuously monitoring the courtrooms to make sure orders were not violated.

Being a budding lawyer, as well as a person who relies heavily on technology, I understand both sides of the argument. The question then becomes, will the courts change their ways, or will the old school pad and paper continue to be essential for reporters in the courtroom.
Mike Isaac, A Trial and a Twitterstorm: On Live-Tweeting From a Federal Courthouse, The New York Times (Jan. 24, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/24/insider/a-trial-and-a-twitterstorm-on-live-tweeting-from-a-federal-courthouse.html.

William Salage

On January 18, 2017, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] announced two new draft guidance on medical product communications.[1] The purpose of the drafts is to help provide clarity for medical product companies, as well as other interested parties, on FDA’s current thinking and recommendations for a few different types of communications about medical products. Specifically, the drafts seeks to answer two common questions amongst the manufacturing community: (1) when off-label marketing is considered free speech; and (2) when should such communications, whether they are directed at doctors, insurers or the public be considered in violation of the law or US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.[2] The release of the memo and new guidance follows a two-day meeting in November on off-label communications in which the FDA examined the possibility for less regulation despite recent court decisions adverse to the FDA’s official position.[3]

The first draft guidance document entitled: ““Drug and Device Manufacturer Communications with Payors, Formulary Committees, and Similar Entities,” explains the FDA’s current thinking and recommendations on firms’ communication of health care economic information (HCEI) about approved drugs under section 502(a) of the FD&C Act, which was recently amended by the 21st Century Cures Act.” [4] The draft also provides the FDA’s recommendations regarding firms’ communications to payors about investigational drugs and devices that are not yet approved or cleared for any use by the FDA.

The second draft guidance entitled, “Medical Product Communications That Are Consistent With the FDA-Required Labeling,” explains the FDA’s position about firms’ medical product communications that include data and information that are not contained in their products’ FDA-required labeling, but that concern the approved or cleared uses of their products.[5]

 

[1] Food & Drug Admin., Statement from FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, M.D. announcing new draft guidances on medical product communications (2017), http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/ Newsroom/ PressAnnouncements/ucm537371.htm (last visited Jan. 27, 2017).

[2] Zachary Brennan, Truthful and Non-Misleading: FDA Looks to Clarify Policies on Medical Product Communications, Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (Jan. 18, 2017), http://www.raps.org/Regulatory-Focus/News/2017/01/18/26628/Truthful-and-Non-Misleading-FDA-Looks-to-Clarify-Policies-on-Medical-Product-Communications/

[3] Brennan, supra note 2; See e.g. Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 119 F. Supp. 3d 196 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (granting Amarin’s application for a preliminary injunction allowing for the company to engage in truthful and non-misleading speech promoting the off-label use of Vascepa).

[4] Food & Drug Admin., Statement from FDA Commissioner Robert Califf, M.D. announcing new draft guidances on medical product communications (2017), http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/ Newsroom/ PressAnnouncements/ucm537371.htm (last visited Jan. 27, 2017).

[5] Id.

Samuel Miller

In a case originating from the United Kingdom, a shopkeeper pled not guilty to charges of circumventing copyright and anti-piracy laws by selling pre-loaded software which allows users to watch video streams of TV shows and other media. With the advent of these types of devices, which include other popular devices such as Roku, Amazon Fire Stick, and Apple TV, users can download and stream media content; however, in places like the United Kingdom, these services have been used to watch movies, TV shows, live TV, and even Pay-Per-View events without paying for the service.[i] According to the website engadget, “Over in the UK, the authorities raided Brian Thompson’s Cut Price Tomo TV’s and have charged him with two offenses under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.”[ii] This matter is believed to be one of the first cases to deal with the sale of these pre-loaded devices.

Mr. Thompson, who has been charged with two offenses under section 296ZB of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, seeks clarity on the rule, specifically as it pertains to individuals who sell these devices with pre-loaded software, as opposed to DIY users at home. Under section 296ZB, “A person commits an offense if he…sells or lets for hire, any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures.”[iii] According to Mr. Thompson, “If I am found guilty and the court rules that I am breaking the law selling these boxes, I want to know what that means for people buying and selling mobile phones or laptops because the software is available for all of them.”[iv] While the problem does not appear to be as widespread in the United States as it is in the United Kingdom, this case has the potential to establish significant legal precedent as it pertains to this ever-growing platform.

[i] ‘Pirate’ Kodi Box Seller Enters “Not Guilty” Plea in Landmark Case, TorrentFreak (2017), https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-kodi-box-seller-enters-not-guilty-plea-landmark-trial/ (last visited Feb 2, 2017).

[ii] Richard Lawler, ‘Fully loaded’ Kodi box seller pleads not guilty Engadget (2017), https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/27/fully-loaded-kodi-box-seller-pleads-not-guilty/ (last visited Feb 2, 2017).

[iii] ‘Pirate’ Kodi Box Seller Enters “Not Guilty” Plea in Landmark Case, TorrentFreak (2017), https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-kodi-box-seller-enters-not-guilty-plea-landmark-trial/ (last visited Feb 2, 2017).

[iv] Jane Wakefield, Not guilty plea in landmark Kodi box trial BBC News (2017), http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38769045 (last visited Feb 2, 2017).

Gurshamsheer Kailey

Scientists have successfully grown human stem cells in pig embryos making it possible, in the future, to develop human organs in animals for transplant. Stem cells from patient’s skin would be used to grow the desired organ in an animal and later harvested and transplanted into the patient’s body. Chimeras, animals composed of two genomes would be used for implanting human stem cells. Use of patient’s own cells would reduce the risk of immune rejection. Many technical and ethical barriers remain to be overcome.

To achieve this goal, researchers need to engineer pigs that cannot make the organ of interest, thus allowing the human stem cells to construct that organ. The pig will supply only blood vessels and nerves which will make it easier to be replaced by the recipient’s cells upon transplant. If the immune system does reject the organ, researchers will have to come up a way to humanize pig’s vasculature genes to be transplanted with the organ.

This recent success is a small step in a process that will take several years to develop. Regarding ethical concerns surrounding chimera, scientists are certain that it could be addressed.

 

Nicholas Wade, New Prospects for Growing Human Replacement Organs in Animals, N.Y. Times ( Jan. 26, 2017), https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/science/chimera-stemcells-organs.html