You could see this working in the future (or now)

I find this case (paywall) very enjoyable and creative.  But read the actual decision attached – it’s short and delightful!

Plaintiff alleged that the medical provider used software that was not secure and that it did not protect his personal information. But also tacitly admits that, as of yet, no one has taken or used plaintiff’s personal information.

In other words, the poorly secured software had yet to be hacked. But plaintiff was harmed because it could be.

The plaintiff lost. But imagine a world where this was a siren’s call for someone to hack the hospital system. It’s a really interesting market. Regular folks find deficient security on a platform that should probably be more secured.  That person hires a lawyer.  The lawyer drafts up and files the complaint and… maybe publicizes to interesting channels that are willing to poke around in weak systems.

And ta da! You may have yourself an actual case at that point.  

Does this feel to anyone like short sellers who short a company and then say how awful a company is?  

Legal Tech by Students

I know very little about CodeX – The Stanford Center for Legal Informatics, but I vow to you dear reader that I will start looking into this.

I fear the technology they are building is probably not quite on point.  I have this theory that legal technology sucks (legal definition) because it is built by people who don’t practice law – or at least practice law in the practical way outside and in-house lawyers do.

And, by the time those outside and in-house lawyers have the practical experience to make a decent legal product, they are making too much money to just give it up for a startup.

It’s a weird feature of law.