Tag Archives: engineer

Engineers: Here’s how to Securing your Mobile Device from Cyber-Attacks (guest post)

Posted on by

smartphone iconToday, a very important post from guest blogger Silvia Brook.  Silvias writes about home and cyber security for homesecurity.org. When she’s not writing, Silvia enjoys biking with her friends or cooking a new recipe from her compendium of cookbooks.

————————-

Believe it or not, cyber security is still a big issue in the tech industry. It seems as though every year a new electronic device is released by one of the major hardware developers, and yet every year consumers who buy those same devices fall prey to a host of viruses, glitches, and malware. A tablet released this year may get hit with just as many (if not more) viruses as they model that preceded it the year before.

Part of why that’s the case is because malicious applications are changing and evolving at the same rate as the new devices that they target. Developers on both sides of the equation are fighting to make the better application—those who design security apps and protection software will try to keep your information, while hackers will try just as hard to take it away.

A recent assessment of the Android OS’s newest virus protection software might explain this problem. The new smartphone OS—Android 4.2—has a built-in malware scanner for apps. A computer scientist at North Carolina State University decided to see how this new scanning software stacked up third-party virus protection apps in a test that pits them all against the latest malware targeting smartphones. The study found that the Android OS app scanner caught malware content only about 20% of the time. The third-party security apps fared much better, some of which caught malware nearly every time.

What are we supposed to do with this information? Google seems to have trouble designing a competent virus scanning application for its own line of smartphones, all of which seem at least vulnerable to potential viruses according to the above report. If that’s the case, then how can people expect to put sensitive information (emails, finances, photos, etc.) on their smartphones?

I think the most important takeaway is that cyber security should be taken seriously by people who use mobile devices on a regular basis. There really are malicious apps out there that could do some serious damage to smartphones and tablets.  Design professionals such as engineers and architects who rely on their electronics for mobile work  are best off defending themselves from such annoyances with third-party apps designed by professionals with a proven track record.

Below are two apps by such developers which have received nothing but glowing reviews from critics.

Avast!

Avast! is a comprehensive software that addresses many key cyber security concerns. For one thing, the software will help users track their smartphones or tablets should they ever get lost or stolen. Avast! will let users locate their misplaces phones via GPS and send SMS messages to it should they want to address whoever has it. Of course the software also protects mobile devices from malware apps and websites that could be packing a nasty virus by scanning every app before it’s loaded. Avast! also allows users to build a firewall for their mobile devices should they suspect that hackers want to tamper with their data. In other words, Avast! is the whole security package for the Android, and it’s free!

F-Secure Mobile Security

F-Secure is an acclaimed security software company, protecting both home computers and mobile devices all sorts of cyber security threats. F-Secure will ensure that mobile users can browse the web safely without fear of encountering malware; the service will also scan incoming apps and data for any potential viruses that could compromise the safety of the device. Like Avast!, F-Secure also has a feature that will help users track down their mobile device should it be misplaced or stolen (and users can erase their data remotely it they suspect that someone has access to their information). F-Secure has a subscription fee, and it’s only available for Android users.

Melissa here again.  What about you?  Do you have a favorite cyber security app?  Depending on how much you work in the Cloud, you should!  

Share your recommendations in the comment section, below.  Just remember, I’m a luddite, so talk in plain and simple terms!

Photo (c) Lora Williams

 

Play Nicely in the Sandbox (or, Why GC’s and Subs Should Get Along) (guest post)

Posted on by

Chris HillToday’s guest post is from Christopher G. Hill, lawyer, Virginia Supreme Court certified General District Court mediator and owner of the Richmond, VA firm, The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill, PC, a LEED AP. Chris authors the Construction Law Musings blog where he discusses legal and policy issues relevant to construction professionals. Additionally, Chris is active in the Associated General Contractors of Virginia and a member of the Board of Governors for the Construction Law and Public Contracts Section of the Virginia State Bar.

———
First off, thanks to Melissa for this opportunity to post here at Construction Law in North Carolina. Having co-presented with her and discussed construction contracting from all perspectives, I can safely say she’s good at what she does and shares great insight here at her blog.

Now that the formalities are out of the way, I thought I’d share my thoughts as one who represents many subcontractors and general contractors on the topic of good relationships meaning good business. I am always a bit surprised at the failure of either side of the GC/Sub dynamic to act in a businesslike manner.

Remember, the General Contractor and the subs are in the boat together in many ways. They both have a job to do and, ultimately, an owner at the top of the payment food chain that is looking to get a project done on time. Ultimately, they both have an architect/engineer representing the owner that may or may not be up on the job (sorry Melissa) and may not be trained in project management. If the general and its subs aren’t “playing well in the sandbox” together, the relationships up and down the project chain get all out of whack and cause delays in completion and importantly in payment.

Another phenomenon that happens more frequently than I would like is the general contractor “burning” good subcontractors in an area through making payment (particularly final payment) difficult to receive. While this type of activity occurs on what I am sure is the minority of projects (and fully acknowledging that my practice makes me think that Murphy was an optimist) I am always flabbergasted by this sort of treatment given to a subcontractor that should be helping pull the boat.

While it is obvious that subs need to play nice with GC’s because they have the money, it may seem less obvious how the above can hurt a general contractor. The short answer (and don’t worry I won’t be going into the long one) is that burning good subs eventually means that good subs won’t work with you. Subs talk to each other. Your reputation will precede you. Eventually the economy will improve and you won’t be the only game in town. Not to mention that such actions are the stuff of which claims are made.

In short, getting along costs your local construction lawyer money because he or she doesn’t get to go to court for you. It is almost always less expensive to get along, finish the job and work out payment than to get we attorneys involved in the construction claims process.

To make a long story somewhat less long, GC’s work with the subs and subs, play nice with the GC’s. It’s the best way to a lower stress project and a higher monetary payoff.

Thanks, Chris, for your insights from the contractor’s side of things.  Even if you did (politely) slam the hard-working design professionals.  Reader, now it’s your turn.  Share your thoughts, comments, or questions with Chris or me in the comment section, below.

Architects & Engineers – Are you committing a Class 2 misdemeanor without realizing it? (Tue Tip; law note)

Posted on by

handcuffsBuried within the general contractor provisions of the North Carolina General Statutes is a little-known provision that can get architects and engineers in hot water.  If you recommend to a project owner anyone who is not properly licensed under the general contractor statute, you have committed a Class 2 misdemeanor.  Really!  Here is the pertinent language:

§ 87-13. Unauthorized practice of contracting; impersonating contractor; false certificate; giving false evidence to Board; penalties

Any person, firm, or corporation not being duly authorized who shall contract for or bid upon the construction of any of the projects or works enumerated in G.S. 87-1, without having first complied with the provisions hereof, or who shall attempt to practice general contracting in the State, except as provided for in this Article, and any person, firm, or corporation presenting or attempting to file as his own the licensed certificate of another or who shall give false or forged evidence of any kind to the Board or to any member thereof in maintaining a certificate of license or who falsely shall impersonate another or who shall use an expired or revoked certificate of license, and any architect or engineer who recommends to any project owner the award of a contract to anyone not properly licensed under this Article, shall be deemed guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor. And the Board may, in its discretion, use its funds to defray the expense, legal or otherwise, in the prosecution of any violations of this Article.

However, there is also some relief in the same statute, which provides that:

No architect or engineer shall be guilty of a violation of this section if his recommendation to award a contract is made in reliance upon current written information received by him from the appropriate Contractor Licensing Board of this State which information erroneously indicates that the contractor being recommended for contract award is properly licensed.

Has this issue ever really been litigated?  Yes, it has.  While I cannot point to reported cases, I will tell you that I have had this become an issue – more than once – in my practice.  Each time, the design professional knew that the entity involved had been a licensed general contractor, but the entity had lost its contractor’s license before the particular project at issue.

Take-away:  Even if the general contractor is the largest and most well-known in the state, always, always, always check with the Licensing Board to confirm that a general contractor is in good standing before making any recommendation to a project owner.  Just in case.  Since Consider it two minutes well spent.

Questions, comments, experiences with this statute?  Share in the comments section of the blog.

Photo (c) Riki Maltese via CC

 

 

 

Something to Hang Your Hat On… (Limitation of Liability clauses) (law note)

Posted on by

hat rackIn the past on this blog, I have pointed out the benefits of Limitations of Liability clauses.  These are the clauses that state that the most damages that your Firm can be responsible for is capped at a certain dollar amount or your contracted fee.

Do you have a limitations of liability clause in your professional services contract?  You should.  Best practice would be to have such a clause that limits damages against you to a set amount.  For example:

Engineer’s liability to Client for any and all injuries, claims, losses, expenses, damages or claim expenses arising out of this agreement, from any cause or causes, shall not exceed the total amount of $50,000 or the amount of Engineer’s fee, whichever is greater.

While best practice is to have such a provision, it is not always enforced.  In a case arising out of the Western District of North Carolina, the court noted that such provisions will not be enforced where the result would be unconscionable and “elicit a profound sense of injustice.” See  Performance Sales & Mktg., LLC v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc.,2010 WL 2294323 (W.D.N.C. June 4, 2010).

What does this mean in practical terms?  It means that you should endeavor to include a limitation of liability clause, but don’t necessarily think that if you have that you’ve capped your risk.  A court can always decide that the clause is unconscionable.  But, such a limitation is one more thing to “hang your hat on” if and when you find yourself staring down the barrel of litigation*.

* If, however, you are facing litigation, make sure you sign up for regular blog updates.  Starting next week, I am writing a new series on the anatomy of a construction lawsuit, so stick around! 

 

Photo:  (c) BabbNet via CC.

Funny Friday (Jokes for Engineers & the folks who love ’em!)

Posted on by
Engineer = good with mathIn an effort to send you off for the weekend in “jolly good spirits,” as my new British sister in law might say, I give you a few engineering jokes, courtesy of the Funny Junk site.  Bonus: there is a lawyer joke contained in this post as well.  Enjoy!
The Design of the Human Body

Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body.

One said, “It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints.”

Another said, “No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous systems many thousands of electrical connections.”

The last said, “Actually it was a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?”

_______________________

Engineer In Hell
An engineer dies and reports to the pearly gates. St. Peter checks his dossier and says, “Ah, you’re an engineer — you’re in the wrong place.”

So the engineer reports to the gates of hell and is let in. Pretty soon, the engineer gets dissatisfied with the level of comfort in hell, and starts designing and building improvements. After a while, they’ve got air conditioning, flush toilets, and escalators, which makes the engineer a pretty popular guy.

One day God calls Satan up on the telephone and says with a sneer, “So, how’s it going down there in hell?”

Satan replies, “Hey, things are going great. We’ve got air conditioning and flush toilets and escalators, and there’s no telling what this engineer is going to come up with next.”

God replies, “What??? You’ve got an engineer? That’s a mistake — he should never have gotten down there; send him up here.”

Satan says, “No way. I like having an engineer on the staff, and I’m keeping him.”

God says, “Send him back up here or I’ll sue.”

Satan laughs uproariously and answers, “Yeah, right. And just where are YOU going to get a lawyer?”

_______________________

The Engineer and the Red Rubber Ball

A mathmatician, a physicist, and an engineer were all given a red rubber ball and told to find the volume.

The mathmatician carefully measured the diameter and evaluated a triple integral.

The physicist filled a beaker with water, put the ball in the water, and measured the total displacement.

The engineer looked up the model and serial numbers in his red-rubber-ball table.

_______________________

Ba dum dum!  This concludes our programming day.  Have a great weekend, everyone!