litigation - legal aspects of new technologies

On 15 December 2017, judges of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Poland ruled on the crucial issue of the choice of court for a plaintiff alleging injury from a publication posted online.

Under Art. 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, a tort claim can be filed with the court in whose jurisdiction the event causing the damage occurred. This provision does not make it clear however whether for this purpose the place where the event causing the damage occurred can also be the area of the court’s jurisdiction where the plaintiff could have seen the online publication.

The City of London Corporation announced in October 2017 that it would establish a new court in London for dealing with cybercrimes. This will reaffirm London’s status as a world financial centre and the best place to run businesses and solve disputes. Other states are also considering establishing such courts. In our view, Poland should not fall behind and should set one up too.

Our firm has seen an increase in cybercrime litigation cases, particularly over the last two years. Examples are: manipulating e-mail correspondence in order to change the details of transfers of funds, phishing, security breaches in servers and theft of confidential data, attacks on devices connected to the internet, malware, thefts of cryptocurrencies on deposit with cryptocurrency exchanges and public wallets, and fraudulent operations of algorithms on various websites.

The physical reality around us is transforming almost imperceptibly into augmented reality (AR). So far, most of us associate the latter mainly with the entertainment industry (such as, say, PokemonGo). Meanwhile, augmented reality may become ubiquitous and permanent – something that cannot be switched off by closing an application or removing AR glasses.

Twenty-four million seven hundred and fifty thousand American dollars. This much was raised in less than 15 minutes by the developers of the Aragon Project. What is it about the Aragon project that has interested so many blockchain users and made them willing to support it?

Under Poland’s Criminal Procedure Code, the holder of IT data is required to turn over the data, e.g. concerning the user of a device, at the demand of the competent authorities. But does this apply only to unencrypted data, or also to encrypted data, which to understand would require the holder to decode its own software? Let’s crack this conundrum using the example of the recently publicised American case of Apple Inc.

In the last couple of years we have seen in our legal practice a great increase in the number of cases related to cybercrime (an issue we discussed in the firm Yearbook, at pp. 7–9). Many cases involve attacks on Internet bank accounts from which criminals steal money, mainly using “phishing” methods, sometimes cleaning out customers’ life savings.