And yet that is what Hendricks' article is about: brands. As the publisher of O'Connor's, the brand's relationship to you, the end-user, is extremely important to me. That's why the pleasure-desire question intrigues me. I think you've correctly framed the issue, but simply because something is a tool doesn't mean you don't take pleasure in using it, and associate that pleasure with the brand.

Richard,

Thanks for the comments. There is a definitely a deep satisfaction in knowing you've won a point because you had better research, but I wonder if we associate the brand with the discovery or ourselves as the researcher? You know where to look for it, but do you see the brand as providing the correct answer for you?

Texas cases? Let\'s do it.

DOIs are expensive though. This is going to be the long term problem if we move to state-supplied, paragraph-numbered opinions. Take Texas as an example. The 5th Circuit in Dallas still thinks it's hot shit and should have it's own website. How do you ensure a uniform system when you let rogues like that hijack it?

Thanks Ricardo. You made me look, so I've updated the post to include the full list of 16. Now to get the others to switch!

Well, there is a certain sentiment that wiretapping laws will discourage sniffing, but I disagree. Putting aside the issue of malice, I think many young people will find it fun if not humorous to screw around with people's accounts. Logged into the Gmail? If I can get in and blast all your contacts with a nice pornographic picture, who knows what kind of personal damage could be done? From a business perspective, the idea of unsecured connections should keep firms who represent those clients up at night. The question I have is at what point does the attorney's duty to a client cross from advising about the law to advising about technological security? If you know it's possible and what it means for confidentiality, what are the limits of your duty?

Venkat,

I'll have more for you on that later.

Good points, lawyers have to use technology, but they also have to find a way to be informed about it. What I'd like to start seeing in software, hardware reviews is a discussion on privacy rights waivers under the E/ULAs. Don't just tell me about how awesome the product is, tell me about what it asks of me in terms of private data.

Lenny, good to hear from you!

No, the ABA hasn't responded and the only good technology related response I saw was the cloud email guidance issued earlier this year. The problem here is that no one knows what this technology is capable of doing, and lawyers (and other folks who should be concerned about secure devices, but aren't) are willing to blindly adopt technology as long as there is some productive upside, e.g., email, internet access, case law search, Angry Birds. Let's put aside the obvious personal privacy invasions and consider what this means for privilege. Have you taken reasonable steps to protect a communication with a client if you know this type of key and location logging program is on your phone? I would really be interested in hearing the debate on this and more smart phone data issues.

I\'ll see what I can crank out over the weekend.