(by Justin Manusov, Colorado Law 3L)
Hacking. Tapping. Cracking. Medjacking.
In the TV show Homeland episode Broken Hearts, a CIA informant is forced to retrieve a serial number that corresponds to the American Vice President’s pacemaker. A terrorist gains access to the VP’s pacemaker, accelerates his heartbeat and induces a heart attack.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney revealed that when he had a device implanted to regulate his heartbeat in 2007, he had his doctors disable its wireless capabilities to prevent a possible assassination attempt.
The health IT community is beginning to take medjacking seriously.
Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Policy #57: Medjacking”
(By Connor Boe, Colorado Law 3L)
Federal agencies have been feeling the pressure to use fewer resources while at the same time creating better outputs for the public good. Traditionally, public services were created and implemented by government experts hired to solve a specific subset of civic problems. Some have argued that this method of solving problems has become too outdated, too bureaucratic, and too politically driven to effectively solve some public issues. People expect their government to do more with less and create innovative solutions to complex problems. How can government actors create effective solutions in the face of competing interests?
Many agencies have turned to a trend in that has its roots in the private sector known as Open Innovation. Federal agencies in the last decade or so have begun to experiment with new forms of problem solving like prize challenges, citizen science, crowdsourcing, and entrepreneurial methodologies. This new trend has had a profound impact on the way government functions and how the public perceives the work that agencies produce.
Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Policy #50: Open Innovation in the Federal Government”
(By Lindsay Bombalski, PhD, Colorado Law 2L)
For those not involved in the publication of scientific papers, it may come as a surprise that once a new scientific finding is published in a scientific journal it often becomes the intellectual property of that journal. Access to the article describing the finding is usually available in three ways:
- By purchasing an individual or institutional license through the journal;
- Purchasing individual articles after reading the abstract through various search engines; or
- Finding the article in a version of the publication that is open-access.
Individual licenses often run around $500/annually for access to up to 250 articles in up to 25 journals with the purchase of a scientific membership—for example, though the American Chemical Society. Institutional agreements can run as high as $25,000 per journal. Alternatively, individual articles can be purchased for $32-$60.
For a student researcher at a university that does not receive funding for journal subscriptions, this means a paper with a reference list of 30 citations from the same journal could require on the order of $600 in subscriptions or $960 in individual payments in order to pass a peer-reviewer in the examination prior to publication. For real articles, the cost can be even higher because many more articles need to be accessed to develop the science in a new article. These figures make clear that the cost of scientific literature research—on top of the cost of materials, chemicals, equipment, and measurements devices makes scientific research—can be out of reach.
A new web site called Sci-Hub was created to lower the cost of educational scientific materials. Sci-Hub, in turn, has raised significant debate about open access to scientific materials and related intellectual property issues.
Continue reading “Last Week in Tech Policy #43: The Educational Materials Copyright Debate”