Internet Archives - Page 18 of 31 - The National Law Forum

Protecting Trade Secrets in the Cloud

The business community’s growing use of cloud-based computing services provides great benefits due to cost-savings and mobile information access. However, business leaders should understand the risks of storing valuable trade secrets in the cloud. This article provides the business community tips on how to safeguard valuable trade secrets stored in the cloud from being freely disclosed to the public, thus putting the business at risk of losing protections that courts grant trade secrets.

As businesses’ profit margins have continued to shrink since the Great Recession, more companies have looked to reduce costs by reducing growing expenses related to their information technology departments.^[1]The first line item to draw attention in the IT budget is frequently the rising costs associated with maintaining and upgrading system hardware. Businesses often find that housing and operating multiple servers stretches IT budgets thin by increasing maintenance, labor, and operational costs. The solution so many businesses have turned to is to move their valuable data to virtual servers, or the “cloud.”^[2] A recent survey of IT executives provides that companies will triple their IT spending on cloud-based services in 2014 over 2011.^[3] Cloud service providers have also seen demand increase as they increase their cloud capabilities.^[4]

Although cloud-based servers provide businesses with substantial financial and operational benefits, businesses must recognize that there are perils to shifting data to the cloud. One of the key concerns businesses should consider before moving data to the cloud is the risk that its valuable trade secrets will lose protection as a result of insufficient safeguards to protect against disclosure. This article addresses that concern and provides businesses keys for seeking to protect valuable secrets in the cloud.

What is a Protectable Trade Secret

The initial step for a business to determine how to protect its trade secrets is to understand how the law characterizes a trade secret. Information qualifies as a trade secret only if it derives independent economic value as a result of not being generally known or readily ascertainable, and be subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. Trade secrets are broadly defined as information, including technical or non-technical data, a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, drawing, process, financial data, strategies, pricing information, and lists of customers, prospective customers, and suppliers.

Businesses Need to Take Reasonable Efforts to Protect Trade Secrets in the Cloud

Trade secrets are only protectable when the owner takes reasonable efforts to prevent them from being freely disclosed to the public so that the information does not become generally known.

Information does not have to be cloaked in absolute secrecy to be a trade secret, as long as a business’s efforts to maintain secrecy or confidentiality are reasonable. It is easy for one to imagine how a business may protect confidential documents that are stored locally. Computer files may be password-protected with several layers of encryption software, with access limited to specified personnel. Similarly, paper files may be stored in locked cabinets, in secured rooms, where only specified personnel are granted access.

However, those seemingly straight-forward security protocols become murky when information is stored in the cloud. Unlike storing data on local servers, storing data in the cloud requires the owner to disclose confidential information to a third-party vendor. In most situations, disclosing data to a third-party eliminates trade secret protections. Therefore, businesses must take additional steps to ensure that its data remains secure.

Three Keys to Protecting Trade Secrets Stored in the Cloud

There are no fail-safe measures to protect data stored in the cloud. The best way for a business to protect its trade secrets is to locally store and protect its most valuable data with the proper data security protocols. A business, however, should not fear the cloud as long as it takes certain steps to ensure that it exercises reasonable efforts to protect its cloud-based data.

First, business leaders must conduct appropriate due diligence before selecting a cloud-provider. The business should conduct necessary research to select a reputable, well-established company that has the physical and technological capabilities to store and protect data.

Conducting due diligence on a provider includes ensuring that the provider has taken necessary steps to establish appropriate physical and virtual security protocols to protect the confidentiality of your information. Inquire how the provider establishes physical security measures, and monitoring capabilities to prevent unauthorized access to its data centers and infrastructure. Also, learn how the provider limits its employees’ access to customer data and determine the internal controls that the provider has in place to prevent unauthorized viewing, copying, or emailing of customer information.

A business should also inquire about the provider’s virtual security protocols. A business must generally understand how its cloud-provider’s encryption software and security management systems work to protect data. If your business is not capable of independently evaluating whether the provider has proper security protocols, a good indicator is to ask the provider for its client list. If the provider has clients that are typically security-conscious companies, such as financial institutions or healthcare facilities, that is a good indication that the provider has been vetted and it has proper security measures in place. Finally, the provider should maintain sufficient data-protection insurance coverage to protect against potential data breaches or system failures.

Second, a business must have contractual safeguards in place with its cloud-provider to adequately protect its intellectual property and trade secrets. The contract should establish that the business owns the data, that it will be segregated from other data groups, and that the business may enjoy unfettered access to the data. The contract should specify that the business can demand that the data be deleted or returned request, and detail how the provider will purge the data to ensure that it is properly deleted upon termination of the relationship. The contract should require regular data backup and recovery tests, while restricting the provider from accessing, using or copying data for its own purpose. Finally, the contract should establish the provider’s obligations to notify the business of a data breach or system failure.

Third, a business should also consider adding multiple layers of authentication and encryption to data containing trade secrets before transmitting it to the cloud-provider. However, a business should consider if the additional encryption efforts could adversely affect the business’s ability to access, utilize, and port data for its normal business use.

Conclusion

There are several financial and operational benefits for a business to store data in the cloud. However, businesses must understand that there are also risks to storing its valuable trade secrets on virtual servers. Businesses need to take reasonable efforts to protect the confidentiality and secrecy of its most valuable data and information.

_{[1] Dave Rosenberg. Reducing IT Infrastructure Costs via Outsourcing. May 7, 2009. news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10235742-62.html}

_{[2] Thor Olavsrud. How Cloud Computing Helps Cut Costs, Boost Profits. March 12, 2013. www.cio.com/article/730036/How_Cloud_Computing_Helps_Cut_Costs_Boost_Profits}

_{[3] Andrew Horne. Transformational Change in IT Will Drive 2014 Spending. November 5, 2013. http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/11/05/transformational-change-in-it-will-drive-2014-spending/}

_{[4] IBM Commits $1.2bn to Cloud Data Centre Expansion. January 17, 2014. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25773266}

ICANN’s gTLD Program – A Look Back and Forward

ICANN’s new Generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) program has been in full swing for over a year now, so it seems an apt time to examine some statistics as to how brands are engaging with new gTLDs, utilizing the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), and which new gTLDs may give .com a run for its money.

gTLD Registration

While ICANN is expecting more than 1,300 gTLDs to go live in the following years, for the moment only slightly more than 400 are available. Despite the relatively slow roll-out of new top level domains (the characters following the ‘.’ in a domain name), the total number of registrations within these new domains has exceed the one million mark.

To date, the top five strings sitting atop the gTLD registrations list are: .xyz, .club, .guru, .berlin, and .photography. The most popular new string .xyz, which is marketing itself as an alternative to the crowded .com registry, has amassed nearly 525,000 registrations alone.

Interest and Adoption by Top Brands

World Trademark Review (WTR) recently explored the .xyz domain registration of the 50 most valuable brands and found that 80% had either registered or blocked their brand in this space. WTR’s review also found evidence of prevalent cybersquatting; for example, a single individual currently owns the domains names “americanexpress,” “honda,” and “homedepot” in the .xyz space.

In general, the levels of brand adoption and interaction with the gTLD program overall remains inconsistent, with some brands significantly more pro-active than others in their fields. Even when it comes to the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), companies traditionally known for brand protection, including RedBull, Nintendo, and Blackberry, have evidently decided not to register their marks with this rights protection database

Trademark Clearinghouse

The TMCH is ICANN’s centralized database of registered trademarks related to the new gTLD program. According to the most recent figures released by the TMCH, nearly 33,000 marks from 103 countries and covering 119 jurisdictions have been submitted. These marks represent protection for over 11,000 brands and businesses worldwide. Of the marks submitted, 87% have been registered by a trademark agent, approximately 50% for multiple years, and nearly 98% have been verified. The TMCH will still be accepting mark submissions and renewals indefinitely, and approximately 7,000 marks have been submitted since the beginning of the year. On November 5 of this year, the first group of TMCH registrations will be up for renewal.

The TMCH is also tasked with delivering Claims Notices to those attempting to register a domain name matching a trademarked term. In March the Clearinghouse revealed that in excess of 500,000 Claims Notices had been issued, and 95% of the infringing domain registrations were no longer being pursued. The TMCH hailed the number of delivered Claims Notices as an indication of a “high level of interest in trademarked terms from third parties,” and proof that “protection mechanisms are working.”

But, while these findings appear to suggest the success of defensive mechanisms, there are at least two alternative interpretations of the data that likely influence these numbers. First, many of the infringing domain registrations were likely the product of data-mining and unlikely to have been pursued regardless. The second is that the sheer number of Claims Notices being issued may be keeping individuals with valid applications on the sidelines. Regardless of the reasoning behind the Claims Notices, they are at least evidence of the popularity and interest surrounding the new gTLD program.

gTLD Round Two?

As the first expanded gTLD round rollout progresses towards conclusion, ICANN has begun planning the second round. The organization has stated publically that the next round is expected in 2016 at the earliest,” but experts believe 2017 is a more realistic time frame.

In preparation for the second round of gTLDs ICANN has published a Draft Work Plan. The 27 page document details several sets of reviews and activities scheduled to guide consideration for the second round of applications. The plan addressed program implementation reviews, root stability, rights protection, the GNSO, and competition, consumer trust, and choice reviews.

As the gTLD space continues to expand indefinitely, brands will have to continue to monitor and reassess how to navigate this dynamic landscape.

ARTICLE BY

Monica Riva Talley

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Common Social Media Profile Picture Mistakes

How you present yourself on social media can either draw clients to you, or send them packing.

What’s the first thing you notice about someone’s social media account? Their profile picture. There are over 645 million active Twitter users, 829 active daily users on Facebook, and over 200 million users on Instagram. Profile pictures are the first thing any of these users will see when your account is searched or suggested on social platforms, so it is vital that your picture send the right message.

Do’s and Don’ts of social media profile pictures:

DON’T make yourself so far away that the person has to play a strategic game of “Where’s Waldo” just to identify you.

DON’T filter your picture so heavily so that the viewer can’t even imagine what the original looked like.

DON’T pose like you’re on the cover of a magazine. There is a time and a place for glamour shots, but your professional profile is not it.

DON’T set your profile image as a picture of you and your spouse. Marriage is a beautiful thing, but this is your profile, not yours and your significant other’s.

DON’T make your profile picture your firm’s logo. While it is important to gain exposure for your firm, your profile picture isn’t the ideal place to do so. A profile picture should personalize you as an attorney. You can, however, put something like a logo as your cover photo so that it is the background to your profile image.

DON’T leave your image as the default, such as the signature Twitter egg. Doing this will not only look impersonal, but also come off like you didn’t care enough to put in the effort to change the photo.

DO follow these guidelines for profile pictures:

Crop the picture so it is an up-close, professional shot of your face.
Make sure it is well-lit and that you’re looking directly at the camera.
Smile! This can showcase how personable you are and also be inviting to the people who see it.
Don’t have anything directly behind you; it is ideal to have professional head shots in front of a green screen.
Your profile picture needs to be large enough that it can be recognized without actually having to click on the image. Be mindful of general size requirements across social media networks.

ARTICLE BY

Samantha Hicks

Consultwebs.com, Inc.

How to Build Trust Online by Being Human

All you have to do is troll your own Facebook or LinkedIn account to know that there is LOTS of content online.

In fact, a recent post at Buffer.com noted that more content is published every day on Facebook than is found in every book published in human history!

So how do you stand out from that enormous crowd and earn the trust you need to succeed with your social media marketing program? Buffer provides these tips:

Use personal pronouns. Using personal pronouns in your posts — I, we, you, me, etc. — and being more conversational elicits empathy from an audience, getting you a better response.

Use simple words. By using simple words, you can convey your idea in a way that people don’t have to think about before understanding it. Big words and legalese will tend to alienate people, not draw them in.

Use stories. Since the beginning of time, humans have communicated by telling stories and the propensity to listen to a story is ingrained in our DNA. A Buffer study showed that adding a story to your blog post can increase readership by 300%.

Use contemporary culture references. Weaving a pop culture reference or two into your post, especially if you’re able to add a celebrity name or two like Beyoncéor George Clooney (see how I did that?), helps boost readership and interest.

Use the Shaq Rule. Shaquille O’Neal is a social media powerhouse, with a Twitter following of 8.5 million and 4.7 million Facebook fans. His rule for posting is that 80% of his posts must be entertaining, 15% must be informative and only 5% should sell something. People can sniff out a sales pitch online immediately, and just as quickly they are on to the next thing.

ARTICLE BY

Morgan Kennedy

Covington & Burling LLP

Grow Your Email List for Free in 5 Simple Steps

Lots of law firms struggle with compiling and maintaining a robust email marketing list, and they really struggle with how to keep adding qualified names to help them build a better list. If you are recognizing yourself as you read this, then the good news is that you can actually build a great list for your firm and it doesn’t need to cost you a dime.

Here are five simple steps you can take to keep growing that important list of people you want to market to:

Grow Your Email List for Free in 5 Simple Steps, Money Tree

1. Provide something of value. Take the top 5 or 10 questions that clients ask you most often, write down the answers and turn that content into an e-book or report. Post this on your website and blog and offer it as a free download to people who provide you with their name and email address. The people who take you up on your offer are good prospects since they are clearly interested in the kind of problems you solve. Add their names to your email marketing list to continue the conversation.

2. Tell them what to do. Your e-newsletter, your website and your blog should always contain easy-to-find calls-to-action that invite readers to subscribe, download a free report, make an appointment for a free consultation — anything you’d like them to do that could lead to business for you. All your calls-to-action need to be simple and have the ability to collect email addresses for you.

3. Keep reviewing your offers. If your readers are not responding well to your calls-to-action or offers, then what you are offering is clearly not appealing to them. First be sure that they are easy to understand. If you’re still not getting a good response, change up your offers. You should do this anyway every few months to keep things fresh.

4. Use social media. Using social media to spread the word about your valuable content and offers is a great way to attract more prospects that you might have otherwise missed. LinkedIn groups are a great way to spread the word, but be sure you’re not being too promotional too often.

5. Pay attention to the analytics. You can gain valuable insight into what people are responding to on your website and in your e-newsletter by scouring the statistics. Google Analytics is a free add-on for your website and blog and provides great information on what pages people are spending time on, and what isn’t working so well. If you use Constant Contact or a similar service for your e-newsletters, these services provide information on how many people opened and read your newsletter and what they clicked on.

By using these five simple steps, you are not just adding names to your list, you are getting truly qualified leads for your marketing efforts.

ARTICLE BY

Stephen Fairley

The Rainmaker Institute

Analog in a Digital World: Journalism and Blogs and Where to find Good Information

In an article profiling John R. MacArthur, the publisher of Harper’s Magazine, MacArthur is quoted as saying, “I’ve got nothing against people getting on their weblogs, on the Internet and blowing off steam. If they want to do that, that’s fine. But it doesn’t pass, in my opinion, for writing and journalism.” The article goes on to note that MacArthur is “analog in his habits” because he “prints out articles to read” and that “[h]is version of searching for [a fact] on Google was yelling to a staff member, who hurried to deliver the information.”

McArthur certainly expresses a sympathetic position. A 24-hour news cycle has contributed to an environment where airtime needs to be filled – recent examples of well-publicized overexposure include CNN’s coverage of the Malaysian Air disappearance or the Casey Anthony trial. And because anyone with an internet connection and a Twitter account can “break” news, there is a race to the bottom as to which organization can print the news first as opposed to which can report it most accurately. The inevitably incendiary rush to judgment after the report of a rumor reported as fact seems only to support MacArthur’s position.

But where MacArthur and I part ways is in our view of what blogs or “lighter” commentary may provide. Instead of web commentary offered as simply “blowing off steam,” the internet is more of a tray of samples. You can try a little of anything, and if you’d like more, then that’s available to you as well.

That’s really the beauty of the internet, right? You can critique Buzzfeed’s lists, but they are a quick read that provide you with the opportunity to read more – possibly even from a true “writing and journalism” source. I mean, no one would think to use this blog exclusively as a defense to criminal charges or as any sort of compliance manual. But ideally, it would help you spot issues or pique your interest so that you read more on a particular topic, consult with counsel, or find a way to improve your workplace.

I like to think about the internet like a newspaper with only headlines. I can get the gist of the story from the headline, and if I’m interested, I can read more. (Example: “Salmon Spawning in Seattle” will not encourage me to read further. But hit me with “Cowboys Sweep Eagles, Giants” and I’m 100 percent in.)

MacArthur and I simply diverge on this implied concept that analog habits are somehow better than digital habits. Perhaps it is the trial lawyer side of me, but I try to be open to ways in which you can convey information. People learn in a variety of different ways: some learn by hearing, some learn by seeing, some learn by doing. Some have longer attention spans; some give hummingbirds a run for their money. So the more ways that you can find to reach people, the better odds of success you have in conveying information that they can use.

And that’s the takeaway point here (yay!). Imagine if your organization disseminated a ten-page written policy on what to do if a federal agent knocks on the door. That’s some important information right there. Is everyone going to read and understand it? Unlikely, right? Too busy to get to it right now, will read it tomorrow, and so on? Yup, that’s the MacArthur way. It just doesn’t work by itself.

Okay, change it up. Skip the written policy and instead conduct a 10-minute training session covering the key facts. Have you taught everyone everything they need to know? Probably not, but you hit the high points. Even if a couple of folks dozing in the back of the room missed it. Right. That would be the Buzzfeed way. This doesn’t work by itself, either.

So instead, disseminate the policy to everyone, and you’ll capture the folks who learn by reading. And conduct your training session, and you’ll capture those folks who learn by listening. And then, as a bonus, rehearse the drill, so you capture those folks who learn by doing. It’s the last piece that most organizations miss, and thereby miss a huge opportunity to make sure their people understand the policies and that their policies actually work.

You can be analog like MacArthur or digital like Buzzfeed. But really effective communication is a blend of both … and just a touch more.

ARTICLE BY

Shamoil T. Shipchandler

Bracewell & Giuliani LLP

Google, the House of Lords and the timing of the EU Data Protection Regulation

(LONDON) Could the European Court of Justice’s May 13, 2014 Google Spain decision delay the adoption of the EU Data Protection Regulation?

In the Google Spain “Right to be Forgotten” case, the ECJ held that Google must remove links to a newspaper article containing properly published information about a Spanish individual on the basis that the information is no longer relevant. The Google Spain decision has given a much sharper focus to the discussion about the Right to be Forgotten that may soon be adopted as part of the new Data Protection Regulation that is expected to be passed sometime in 2015. With the advent of the Google Spain decision, an issue that was on the sideline for most businesses – and which was expected by some to be quietly dropped from the draft Data Protection Regulation – has become a hot political issue. The Right to be Forgotten as interpreted by the ECJ has garnered international attention, deepened the UK/continental EU divide, and ultimately could delay the adoption of a final form of the Data Protection Regulation.

The Google Spain case has been controversial for various reasons. The decision takes an expansive approach to the long-arm reach of EU data protection law. It holds search engine providers liable to comply with removal requests even when the information in the search results is true, was originally published legally and can continue to be made available by the original website. The decision makes the search engine provider the initial arbiter of whether the individual’s right to have his or her information removed from publically available search results is outweighed by the public’s interest in access to that information. (For a pithy analysis of the “public record” aspects of the case, see John Gapper’s “Google should not erase the web’s memory” published in the Financial Times.)

Google started implementing the ruling almost immediately, but only with respect to search results obtained through the use of its country-specific versions of its search engine, such aswww.google.es or www.google.co.uk. The EU-specific search engine results notify users when some results have been omitted due to EU’s Right to be Forgotten. (See the Telegraph’s ongoing list of the stories it has published that have been deleted from Google.co.uk’s search results to get a flavor of the sort of search results that have been deleted.) However, the “generic” version of Google (www.google.com), which is also the default version for users in the US, does not omit the banned results.

Google has been engaged in an ongoing dialogue with EU data protection authorities regarding Google’s implementation of the Google Spain ruling. According to some media reports, EU officials have complained that Google is implementing the ruling too broadly, allegedly to make a political point, while other commentators have noted that the ruling give Google very few reference points for performing the balancing-of-rights that is required by the ruling. Perhaps more interestingly, some EU officials want Google to apply the Right to be Forgotten globally (including for google.com results) and without noting that any search results have been omitted (to prevent any negative inferences being drawn by the public based on notice that something has been deleted). If the EU prevails with regard to removing personal data globally and without notice that the search results contain omissions, critics who are concerned about distortions of the public record and censorship at the regional level will have an even stronger case. Of course, if truly global censorship becomes legally required by the EU, it seems likely that non-EU governments and organizations will enter the dialogue with a bit more energy – but even more vigorous international debate does not guarantee that the EU would be persuaded to change its views.

The ongoing public debate about the potentially global reach of the Right to be Forgotten is significant enough that it could potentially delay agreement on the final wording of the Data Protection Regulation. Recently, an important committee of the UK’s House of Lords issued a report deeply critical of the Google Spain decision and the Right to be Forgotten as enshrined in the draft Data Protection Directive. Additionally, the UK’s Minister of Justice, Simon Hughes, has stated publically that the UK will seek to have the Right to be Forgotten removed from the draft Data Protection Regulation. The impact of the UK’s stance (and the efforts of other Right to be Forgotten critics) on the timing of the adoption of the Regulation remains to be seen. In the meantime, search companies will continue to grapple with compliance with the Google Spain decision. Other companies that deal with EU personal data should tune in as the EU Parliament’s next session gets underway and we move inevitably closer to a final Data Protection Regulation.

ARTICLE BY

Hope S. Foster

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Microsoft Ordered to Hand Over Data to the U.S. Government

In April, Microsoft tried to quash a search warrant from law enforcement agents in the United States (U.S.) that asked the technology company to produce the contents of one of its customer’s emails stored on a server located in Dublin, Ireland. The magistrate court denied Microsoft’s challenge, and Microsoft appealed. On July 31st, the software giant presented its case in the Southern District of New York where it was dealt another loss.

U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska, after two hours of oral argument, affirmed the magistrate court’s decision andordered Microsoft to hand over the user data stored in Ireland in accordance with the original warrant. Microsoft argued that the warrant exceeded U.S. jurisdictional reach. However, the court explained that the decision turned on section 442(1)(a) of Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations. The provision says that a court can permit a U.S. agency “to order a person subject to its jurisdiction to produce documents, objects or other information relevant to an action or investigation, even if the information or the person in possession of the information is outside the United States.” Because Microsoft is located in the U.S. , the information it controlled abroad could be subject to domestic jurisdiction.

Microsoft had the support of large U.S. technology companies, including Apple, AT&T and Verizon. The larger issue for these companies lies in the U.S. government’s power to seize data and content held in the cloud and stored in locations around the world. When a conflict arises between the data sharing laws of the country where the servers are located and U.S. law, it can put these companies in the difficult position to choose to follow one country’s laws over the other.

Microsoft further argued that the ramifications for international policy are substantial. The company argued that compelling production of foreign stored information was an intrusion upon Irish sovereignty. It said that the decision could be interpreted by foreign countries as a green light to make similar invasions into data stored in the U.S. However, Judge Preska dismissed these concerns as diplomatic issues that were incidental and not of the court’s immediate concern.

The order has been stayed pending appeal.

ARTICLE BY

Rohit Dave

Proskauer Rose LLP

New Jersey Suit Against School District Regarding Tweet Settles

As previously reported, in a March 2014 filing titled H.W. v. Sterling High School District, a New Jersey high school student filed suit claiming school officials had violated her constitutional rights when they punished her for content she posted on Twitter which criticized Sterling High School’s principal.

The settlement, which was approved by the Sterling High School District in April and entered by the Court on July 29, 2014, provides that the district will reimburse the student $9,000 for her legal fees. However, the district will not pay additional damages to the student. In addition, the school district agreed to revoke punishments imposed against the student for her Twitter postings, expunge documents related to the incident from the student’s academic record, and abandon its attempted requirements for drug testing of the student. Specifically, the agreement provides that the student is eligible for graduation upon completion of outstanding assignments, is allowed to attend the senior class trip to Florida, and if the student does not seek press coverage or disclose the settlement terms she will be allowed to participate in prom and the graduation ceremony.

Beyond agreements directly between the school district and the student, the settlement also calls of the school to modify its student handbook to specify that administrators “may be monitoring student discussions on Facebook, Twitter or other social media outlets and may seek to impose penalties in accordance with the student code of conduct if such discussions cause a substantial disruption at the school.”

ARTICLE BY

Jason C. Gavejian

Jackson Lewis P.C.

HTTPS – Should I Implement It on My Site?

Google announced last Wednesday, August 6, that the search engine will use https as a ranking signal. HTTPS stands forHypertext Transport Protocol Secure, which protects the data integrity and confidentiality of users visiting a site. For example, when a user enters data into a form on a site in order to subscribe to updates or purchase a product, a secure site protects that user’s personal information and ensures that the user communicates with the authorized owner of the site. For the HTTPS connection to work properly, websites require an SSL certificate, which is what enables the site to make a secure connection.

HTTPS Hypertext Transport Protocol Secure

Even though Google is making this change, it is not something that webmasters should jump into lightly. Webmasters should implement https only when they really need it and have sections in their site where they need to protect their visitors’ information.

Before making any drastic changes to the site, it is important to take into consideration that Google stated that this change will affect less than one percent of queries, carrying less weight than other signals such as high-quality content.

Cons of using https

Up until this recent announcement, it was recommended only using https on the sections of the site that needed to protect the confidentiality of user data, such as payment forms that collected credit card information, the site’s login section or any page that would sends/receive other private information (such as street address, phone number or health records), because using https in the whole site can overload webservers and make sites slower, which affects negatively on a site’s ranking.
Changing to https also means that all of the URLs in your site will change and it will be necessary to redirect all of the URLs on the site, so that they can be indexed by Google and avoid having duplicate content between https and http URLs. Redirects usually increase the load time of the site, which can be negative ranking factor and reduce the link juice coming from external sites pointing to http URLs.
SSL certificates cost money, and certificates signed by well-known authorities can be expensive.

I advise against making an immediate decision to change to https because it is a recent change and apparently the effort to switch exceeds the benefit obtained in rankings. Right now it is better to stand back and observe how the change affects those sites that alter their URLs to https.

ARTICLE BY

Robert Padgett

Consultwebs.com, Inc.

Category: Internet