The debilitating outages from CrowdStrike's botched security update last 19 July grounded flights, glitched 911 call lines, and blocked patients from accessing their medical records. However, a closer look at the cybersecurity company's terms and conditions, CrowdStrike doesn't have to shell out anything more than a simple refund.

The terms for CrowdStrike's Falcon security software — which is used by companies and government agencies around the world — limit liability to "fees paid."

That means that if a company had a claim against CrowdStrike for the damage or lost revenue to its business, the most it could recover is just what it paid to CrowdStrike, according to Elizabeth Burgin Waller, the chair of the Cybersecurity and Data Privacy practice at Woods Rogers.

That means CrowdStrike users who signed the standard terms and conditions can't expect to get more than a refund from the company, Waller said.

"Even if they did cover that lost revenue or downtime, they limit the recovery against CrowdStrike to fees paid," Waller told Business Insider. "So whatever I paid for fees to CrowdStrike, that's what the limitation of liability would be."

Bigger companies using CrowdStrike's software — like some of the airlines or hospital chains affected — may have negotiated different terms and conditions contracts with the cybersecurity company. Those contracts aren't public, and it's possible they contain terms that would hold CrowdStrike liable for more damages, Waller said.

"If you're a huge company, you might have been able to get some negotiation around that," she said.

To cover all the expenses being paid to deal with the CrowdStrike fallout — including hiring IT people to install another update that fixes the issue on Windows machines, lost employee productivity, fixing issues for customers, and possible legal expenses for publicly traded companies that need to file relevant securities reports for investors — most companies will have to turn to cyber insurers, Waller said.

According to Waller, most cyber insurance companies have policies that cover "contingent business interruption" or "dependent business interruption." Those allow companies to recover damages from insurers against third-party cybersecurity companies they depend on. CrowdStrike's Falcon software, which monitors threats on computers, could qualify.

"If I've got a big stop sign in front of me — terms and conditions against CrowdStrike — or if I can only get a refund, then I need to go look to my own cyber insurance policy," Waller said.

Many such policies cover only malicious events like hacking, Waller said.

"We've just got a software glitch. So I think we're going to see lawsuits filed against cyber insurance carriers for years to come, I imagine, on this outage," Waller said. "This is a pretty big, from a cyber insurance standpoint, I think this is also going to spawn a lot of litigation about what's covered and what is intended under these different policies."

Read More ...

By Nermin Hajdarbegovic, Technical Editor @ TOPTAL

Before I proceed, let me make it absolutely clear that I have nothing against crowdfunding. I believe the basic principle behind crowdfunding is sound, and, in a perfect world, it would boost innovation and provide talented, creative people with an opportunity to turn their dreams into reality.

Unfortunately, we live in the real world, and therefore it’s time for a reality check:

Reality /rɪˈalɪti/

noun

The state of things as they actually exist.
The place where bad crowdfunded ideas come to die.

While most entrepreneurs may feel this mess does not concern them because they don’t dabble in crowdfunding, it could have a negative impact on countless people who are not directly exposed to it:

1. We are allowing snake oil peddlers to wreck the reputation of crowdfunding and the startup scene.
2. Reputational risks extend to parties with no direct involvement in crowdfunding.
3. By failing to clean up the crowdfunding scene, we are indirectly depriving legitimate ideas of access to funding and support.
4. When crowdfunded projects crash and burn, the crowd can quickly turn into a mob.

This is my argument: Entrepreneurs, developers, and enthusiasts have to be committed to weeding out bad apples in crowdfunding, for the greater good of our industry.

But Wait, Crowdfunding Gave Us Great Tech Products!

Indeed, but I am not here to talk about the good stuff, and here is why: For every Oculus Rift, there are literally hundreds of utterly asinine ideas vying for crowd-cash.

Unfortunately, people tend to focus on positive examples and overlook everything else. The sad truth is that Oculus Rift is a bad example of crowdfunding, because it’s essentially an exception to the rule. The majority of crowdfunding drives don’t succeed.

How did a sound, altruistic concept of democratizing entrepreneurship become synonymous with failure? I could list a few factors:

• Unprofessional media coverage
• Social network hype
• Lack of responsibility and accountability
• Lack of regulation and oversight

The press should be doing a better job. Major news organizations consistently fail to recognize impossible ideas, indicating they are incapable of professional, critical news coverage. Many are megaphones for anyone who walks through the door with clickbait.

The press problem is made exponentially worse by social networks, which allow ideas to spread like wildfire. People think outlandish ideas are legitimate because they are covered by huge news outlets, so they share them, assuming the media fact-checked everything.

Once it becomes obvious that a certain crowdfunding initiative is not going to succeed, crowdfunding platforms are supposed to pull the plug. Sadly, they are often slow to react.

Crowdfunding platforms should properly screen campaigns. The industry needs a more effective regulatory framework and oversight.

Realistic Expectations: Are You As Good As Oculus Rift?

Are you familiar with the “Why aren’t we funding this?” meme? Sometimes the meme depicts awesome ideas, sometimes it shows ideas that are “out there” but entertaining nonetheless. The meme could be applied to many crowdfunding campaigns with a twist:

"Why are we funding this?"

This is what I love about crowdfunding. Say you enjoyed some classic games on your NES or Commodore in the eighties. Fast forward three decades and some of these games have a cult following, but the market is too small to get publishers interested. Why not use crowdfunding to connect fans around the globe and launch a campaign to port classic games to new platforms?

You can probably see where I'm going with this: Crowdfunding is a great way of tapping a broad community in all corners of the world, allowing niche products and services to get funded. It’s all about expanding niche markets, increasing the viability of projects with limited mainstream appeal.

When you see a crowdfunding campaign promising to disrupt a mainstream market, that should be a red flag.

Why? Because you don’t need crowdfunding if you have a truly awesome idea and business plan with a lot of mainstream market appeal. You simply need to reach out to a few potential investors and watch the money roll in.

I decided against using failed software-related projects to illustrate my point:

1. Most people are not familiar with the inner workings of software development, and can’t be blamed for not understanding the process.
2. My examples should illustrate hype, and they’re entertaining.

That’s why I’m focusing on two ridiculous campaigns: the Triton artificial gill and the Fontus self-filling water bottle.

Triton Artificial Gill: How Not To Do Crowdfunding

The Triton artificial gill is essentially a fantasy straight out of Bond movies. It’s supposed to allow humans to "breathe" underwater by harvesting oxygen from water. It supposedly accomplishes this using insanely efficient filters with "fine threads and holes, smaller than water molecules" and is powered by a "micro battery" that’s 30 times more powerful than standard batteries, and charges 1,000 times faster.

Sci-Tech Red Flag: Hang on. If you have such battery technology, what the hell do you need crowdfunding for?! Samsung, Apple, Sony, Tesla, Toyota and just about everyone else would be lining up to buy it, turning you into a multibillionaire overnight.

Let's sum up the claims:

1. The necessary battery technology does not exist.
2. The described “filter” is physically impossible to construct.
3. The device would need to “filter” huge amounts of water to extract enough oxygen.

Given all the outlandish claims, you’d expect this sort of idea to be exposed for what it is within days. Unfortunately, it was treated as a legitimate project by many media organizations. It spread to social media and eventually raised nearly $900,000 on Indiegogo in a matter of weeks.

Luckily, they had to refund their backers.

Read More ...

By Matt Swanson, Managing Partner @ Silicon Valley Software Group

There is a new multi-trillion dollar economy opening up to technology faster than ever. It has been driven by trends that have changed the nature of how entrepreneurs will be characterized going forward; specifically, industry executives will be the next wave of in-demand startup CEOs.

In April of 2007, Apple changed everything with the launch of the iPhone. It is hard to imagine that it has only been 8 years since the release of the first truly pervasive smartphone, but there is no denying its impact has been world-changing. Beyond the creation of a new dimension of industry-driven, by location-based, services (and with it, a myriad of billion dollar companies), an equally significant phenomenon emerged.

By creating technology that was intuitive to the consumer masses, every person around the world started to embrace technology as more than just a work tool. Lawyers, doctors, car mechanics and people from every sector of the economy not only had a tool for productivity, but a piece of technology in their pocket they embraced as an intimate part of their lives.

Furthermore, these new consumers could now point to a standard for usable technology. Cumbersome, enterprise legal software that won’t allow a lawyer to search cases from outside the office is no longer acceptable. For those outside of the Silicon Valley silo, conversations can be heard from construction workers sitting on a lunch break saying “Wouldn’t it be nice if there was an app to ...”.

Unfortunately, these conversations are often too far away from Silicon Valley’s ears, which are still dominated by the talk of what will be the next WhatsApp or Instagram. Even so, a new breed of entrepreneur is emerging who see firsthand the challenges in their industry, and with that the opportunity to make a world-changing impact, and these entrepreneurs do not fit the founder archetype that many Silicon Valley investors look for.

Previous decades saw similar shifts in entrepreneur characterizations. The late 90s were about Harvard MBAs applying traditional management techniques to leverage brand new Internet technologies. The "aughts" brought on the "22 year-old Stanford Computer Science" graduate applying technology to a low hanging industry. Now, in this decade, we are seeing a new wave of entrepreneurship driven by industry executives with deep product backgrounds leveraging technology to disrupt a traditionally non-tech industry.

For the past 2 years I've had the opportunity to see this shift firsthand as the managing partner of Silicon Valley Software Group (SVSG), a firm of CTOs focused on helping companies with their technology strategy. SVSG has seen entrepreneurs ranging from movie producers, lead singers of platinum album rock bands, travel executives, and hedge fund managers all trying to figure out how to leverage their domain expertise through technology.

After a number of similar engagements, a few observations have emerged:

• In each venture, a product-focused entrepreneur saw the adoption of technology among their peers in a particular industry and, with that, the opportunity to create a product focused on that industry.
• None of these entrepreneurs had notable tech experience.
• Hardly ANY of these high profile individuals had relevant connections with the Silicon Valley community.

This last observation is of particular importance!

The combination of growth capital, multidisciplinary talent, and mentors sharing best practices around how to create hyper-growth businesses are often taken for granted by those who are part of the ecosystem. However, the disconnect between Silicon Valley natives and outsiders is shocking. Many of the companies SVSG has come across have no ability to raise strategic capital at first because their businesses are too risky when considering common pitfalls they are more likely to fall into compared with their Valley peers. Concepts as commonplace as the lean startup methodology are welcomed as sage insight to these new entrepreneurs.

What is missing for these new founders is a bridge into Silicon Valley. To date, this has been stymied by a narrow mindset from the Silicon Valley community. However, the forces of capitalism will eventually prevail and these new entrepreneurs will find their own community to center around. Keen investors will lead the herd and take advantage of existing markets ripe for change. Incubators and accelerators will emerge with a focus on entrepreneurs with deep industry experience. We are in a tech boom right now and there are countless ways to apply technology to industries that haven’t changed in decades. For those sitting in the corner office, the time has come to venture out, there are markets to disrupt.

Read More ...