Exclusive Tech Ed 2009 bag preview
Next week, Microsoft’s mega-implant recharging event, Tech Ed 2009, rolls over Auckland, for the benefit of many hundreds of Redmond-oriented and otherwise aligned geeks. There’s lots to take part of, like CFO Chris Liddell’s keynote on research and development results, and 14 conference tracks to get you out of whatever rut you’re in. Fear not, Computerworld has the most important Tech Ed 2009 thing covered already, namely The Bag. And here’s your very exclusive preview of it. Thank us later. First, in these times of sustainability, it’s important to check how green the bag is:
As you can see, not at all. This year’s edition is really rather blue, with black surroundings. We seem to have gone from last years sombre, dark floppiness to a more gay, colourful stiffness that emphasises the square shape of the bag and adds to its overall functionality.
Opening up the customary bag flap reveals a standard issue geek container that will fit a 13 to 15” screen laptop — my Dell Studio 17 with its glorious 1920 by 1200 screen is rather too big for the bag, sadly, but I’m sure the HP Mini 5101 netbook that was on offer for $699 to Tech Ed delegates will be cosy and snug inside. Other than the blue colour, the 09 bag is really quite conventional. This isn’t a bad thing per se, of course, but compared to classics like the chimney bag with an insulated food compartment, well, this year’s tote is a trifle ordinary. Luckily, the Microsoft logo patch will come off easily, so the bag can be anonymised without too much trouble. What’s inside the bag then? That we don’t know yet. A netbook would’ve been wunderbar, but we suspect there will be some vendor leaflets, and maybe also trial copies of Microsoftware, in the dark recesses of the Tech Ed 2009 bag. Overall, the bag shouldn’t disappoint delegates and it’ll look good in your collection as it does in ours. — Microsoft Tech Ed 2009
Google monopolises Monopoly
So, there really was a way to make Monopoly better. I freely admit that it never occurred to me to use Google Maps to play Monopoly, but now that I see it... of course. It is the Killer Application for Google Maps. In fact, Google and Hasbro should’ve realised the game would be so popular that it needed more resource than currently powers the entire internet. Google didn’t and the site died. I’m sure it’ll be up soon again, and wonder what the next Maps game will be? Risk? Nuclear Missile Command? Asteroid? — Google's Monopoly
Bad a Bing
Speaking of internet maps, fellow Twitterer Kris Bainbridge pointed out how out of date Bing’s Maps are for Auckland. Try finding Vector Arena on it, or the new whirligig Onewa motorway exchange, and you’ll be sod out of luck. It seems the maps are seven to eight years old at least, which is lazy of Microsoft. That’s not how you create location-based and aware services. — Bing fail
XKCD Date
Cartoon: www.xkcd.com
Robert X Cringely
The high cost of Internet (de)fame
Where does free speech end and libel begin? It's not an easy question to answer, says the attorney for the now-infamous 'Skanks in NYC' blogger
If it seems like Notes From the Field is turning into the Notes From the Land of Internet Defamation and Anonymity, my apologies. But this is a topic that I've sunk my teeth into and now I can't seem to unsink them.
After my recent posts about Liskula Cohen ("Skanks for nothing: Google must identify 'anonymous' blogger") and TCI Journal ("Why Internet anonymity matters"), I had the opportunity to chat with attorney Anne W. Salisbury of Guzov Ofsink, LLC. She answered a number of questions I had about both cases, as well as those from some Cringesters who wrote in. So thought I'd share her insights with the rest of you out there in Cringeville.
Salisbury is the attorney who defended then-anonymous Skanks in NYC blogger Rosemary Port in her unsuccessful efforts to keep her identity out of the public eye. (She is not, however, representing Port in her $15 million suit against Google for spilling the beans.)
Salisbury says that before Cohen's suit became public knowledge, that blog had a handful of page views — half of them from Salisbury. The morning the news of the lawsuit hit the Web, it clocked 16,000.
But what does and doesn't constitute defamation is a complicated question, says Salisbury. The answer depends on who's doing the defaming, who's allegedly being defamed, whether it's a statement of fact or clearly an opinion, whether the person making the statement believes it's accurate (even if it isn't), and so on.
For example, if it's a journalist making a statement about a public figure that he or she believes to be true, there's virtually no grounds for a suit. (Which doesn't mean the public figure won't file one anyway; so far, nobody's bothered to sue me, thank God.) If it's a private person spreading public lies about another private person, the defamation factor goes way up. For everything in between, it's a judgment call.
Of course, defining "public figure" or — in the age of the five-minute blog — "journalist" is not so simple either. There are only about five cases that can be used as precedent, says Salisbury, and the "test" a particular court chooses has a huge bearing on the outcome of the case.
Salisbury argued for the strictest test, which required Cohen's attorneys demonstrate actual libel before ordering Google to surrender the name (or in this case, the IP address) of the Skanks in NYC blogger. The court disagreed and went with an easier test. She also argued that in the Liskula Cohen case, the blogger was stating opinion, not fact — and thus her statements did not qualify as libel.
"Defamation has to be verifiably true or not true," says Salisbury. "How do you prove in court that you are or are not a skank? How do you even define it?"
(Just to be clear: I still believe anonymous attacks are wrong, even if they're just someone's opinion. I'm not saying you shouldn't have the right to say nasty things, I'm arguing you should own up to them. There are good reasons for maintaining anonymity, but cowardice isn't one of them.)
The TCI Journal case, says Salisbury, demonstrates the slippery slope of using the legal system to identify someone before it's proven they have or haven't libeled someone else.
In this case, an anonymously edited news site in Turks & Caicos is being sued by a land developer seeking to identify the people running the site. The developer is accused of bribing the now-deposed-governor premier of the island in exchange for very favourable land deals and has been making a vigorous effort to keep that information out of the public record. (Too late, it seems.)
Note: An earlier version of this post said the governor of Turks & Caicos was deposed. It was Premier Michael Misick who was accused of taking bribes and removed from office by British authorities. Sorry for the error. - RXC]
Apparently, all the land developer had to do was file a document with a court in Santa Clara, California, along with a fee of US$355, to demand Google release their identities. Like most service providers in this situation, Google is taking a hands-off approach and letting the two parties fight it out among themselves.
The as-yet-anonymous editors of TCI Journal sent me a note:
"It is our belief that they were simply hoping no one would show up and they would get whatever information Google might release and then use it in a jurisdiction such as the UK were the libel laws are more slanted towards plaintiffs."
Also: The TCIJ folks say I erred when I called them "muckrakers." Though there appears to be no shortage of muck in the Caribbean, they prefer to call themselves a site "devoted to Good Governance and Public Policy." They also say they've secured the services of a "prominent attorney" and added the following:
"We will be responding to the subpoena in court and are hopefully that Google will lend their weight behind our position. Google is still considering if and how it will respond to this particular case."
With these two cases suddenly front and centre, Salisbury believes we are at a "defining moment" in the age of internet anonymity. I think she may be right. But how it will be defined — and who will get to define it — aren't so clear.
No, I'm not done with this topic yet. Got more to say about Net anonymity and defamity? Post it below or e-mail me: cringe@infoworld.com.