Tech Talk

Facebook, according to at least one news report, is taking down fan pages that support the man who allegedly crashed a small plane into a Texas office building.

The social networking giant could be setting a dangerous precedent by restricting the speech of its users if the report disseminated by the reputable Breaking News Twitter account attributed to NBC News is true. As Facebook becomes the modern-day water cooler across America and around the world, it is becoming increasingly important to foster conversations — of all perspectives.

While Tech Talk would never condone the alleged actions of Andrew Joseph Stack, simply stating opinions should not be restricted.  In fact, such actions will likely make the situation worse as users could feel further ostracized and go further underground.  It would be better to have such conversations carried out in open.

It has been widely reported that Stack crashed a plane into an Austin office building with federal offices around 11 a.m. ET Thursday.  At least eight people were injured, according to the Statesman, and at least two people died, possibily including the pilot.  The newspaper reported that officials said the incident “appears to be an intentional act, appears to be by a sole individual, and it appears this individual was targeting federal offices inside that building.”

While it is still not certain what exactly the respective groups are stating, if they are simply discussing the act of domestic terrorism and not encouraging similar actions, it seems that they would not pose a threat to national security. 

America is founded on the freedom of speech, and such expression should be protected whether it is favorable or not, so as long as it does not encourage violence.

The New York Times announced Wednesday that it would charge frequent visitors to its Web site to view content.

Visitors to the most popular newspaper site in the country will only be permitted to view a still to be determined number of articles at no cost beginning in January 2011, according to the Times. Readers wishing to view additional articles will have to pay a yet to be announced flat fee for unlimited access.

Print subscribers to the Times need not reach for their checkbooks.  They will continue to enjoy full access to the site at no additional charge, the newspaper reported.

The Times will be among but a few major newspapers in America to put a considerable amount of content behind a pay wall.  The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and Newsday are among the few other large papers in the country that currently charge for content.

However, like the Journal, readers who find an article on a search engine will not face reader fees, according to the Times.

Tech Talk applauds the Times’ decision to charge. While some analysts and readers may criticize the decision, Tech Talk recognizes that newspapers need to find additional revenue to continue to consistently provide comprehensive coverage.  We hope additional newspapers follow suit.

The Internet is an equal opportunity disseminator.  It allows private citizens, print media, broadcasters, governments and corporations to compete to be the first to report a given item for the first time in history.

However, in the pursuit of being first, it is important to be accurate.

The University of Connecticut was very likely the first organization to post that they lost Saturday night’s PapaJohns.com bowl game.

Unfortunately, they won.  And the folks at the Huskies’ athletics site have yet to realize the error for more than an hour.

Check out these two screen captures, and pay close attention to the final scores:

Screen capture courtesy of Tim Bleasdale.

UPDATE: 6:19 p.m.: Since breaking this story, UConn has corrected the score.

The American justice system is facing a threat that could result in the incarceration of the innocent and freedom of the guilty.

Graphic courtesy of California Court System

For years, judges have instructed juries to refrain from reading newspapers or watching local television news to preserve each defendant’s right to a fair trial.  However, the Internet threatens to strip our society from that inherent right of all men, women and children.

As Americans, and particularly folks from Southwestern Connecticut, become increasingly connected, it is becoming more difficult to avoid tainting a jury pool.  Countless blogs, tweets and Facebook statuses are disseminated everyday on a variety of topics — in an unpredictable manner.  As an example, a Tech Talk post from last week reported that almost 100 million words a day were posted in Facebook status updates at the beginning of the year.  It is impossible to anticipate the information one will find by logging onto the net.

For this reason, judges need to instruct juries to not just avoid – but stop visiting blogs and social networking sites – during their service as a juror.  Who knows, as was mentioned in a Tech Talk post earlier this week, it might even do the jurors some good to cut their digital leash for a little while.

The Internet also allows people, jurors included, to find supplemental information.  Jurors should be banned from using the net to find more information on the case they have been selected to offer a judgement on.

A TIME article reported that one juror doing research led to a mistrial in Miami.  This juror should be imprisoned.  It may seem harsh, but such actions threaten the very integrity of this country’s jury system — it’s that simple.  Think that juror’s actions were an isolated incident?  Think again! It was determined that at least nine of the 12 jurors Googled after hours.  America needs to get serious on this issue.

In another instance cited in the same article, a New York City juror sent a Facebook friend request to a witness during deliberations.  Following a guilty verdict, the defense team tried to get the verdict overturned, according to the article.  If the request had been granted, a potentially guilty person could have gone free and threatened the innocent.  If this person was innocent, someone who should not have been jailed was. How would you like to be imprisoned for something you did not do because of Facebook?  Either way, it is clear that judges need to prohibit jurors from utilizing social networking sites entirely during trials — and make clear that any use of the Internet, or any other means, to get supplemental information or to connect with people involved in the case will be a jailable offense.

As social networking becomes an increasingly integral part of our society, it could be expected that users will share more of life’s triumphs and tragedies.  However, for one mom, sharing the loss of her young son sparked public outrage.

Shellie Ross, an avid blogger and tweeter, announced the passing of her 2-year-old son to her 5,000 followers on Twitter, according to ABC News.

Ross tweeted 34 minutes after her 11-year-old son dialed 911 to report that his brother was floating unconsciously in their pool, according to the story, begging for her followers to “please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool.” 

About five hours later, ABC News reports, the distraught mother tweeted again, saying: “Remembering my million dollar baby.”  She also included at least two photos of her son.

Her announcement prompted both sympathy and anger from other Internet users, the network reported.

Ross told ABCNews.com that no one had a right to question her tweets, and that anyone who attacked her for announcing her son’s death on Twitter “is a small-minded a**hole who deserves to rot in hell.”

Some people, however, defended her actions saying that tweeting the most effective way of disseminating the news with some of the people most important to her.

As social networking continues to evolve and spread among demographics, I have no doubt that users will continue to share more about themselves.

In fact, I am surprised that Ross’ story is even newsworthy.  The proliferation of information about one’s life is one of the most practical and common use of social networking sites, like Twitter and Facebook.

In fact, above the box utilized the share information on Twitter asks users: “What’s happening?”

Ross, I believe, did nothing wrong.  She utilized her social network as she desired.  Her child’s welfare or well-being was never threatened or put at risk by her actions.  She simply turned to her friends and followers in one of the darkest moments, just as people have for thousands of years.  Just because this mother opted to digitally should not change her desire — and overwhelming need — to find support.

For anyone who doubted her sincerity should have stopped following her, but to demean her, as some people did, is just unfathomable. 

I believe more people will utilize social networking in their times of personal triumphs — and yes, tragedies — and will soon instances like this will be non-stories.

Until then, my heart is with Shellie Ross.

New York City customers could once again purchase the iPhone online, Tech Talk has confirmed, as the Associated Press originally reported Monday afternoon.

AT&T customers living in New York City discovered over the past few days that they were no longer able to purchase the wildly popular iPhone from its Web site.

Customers who entered a New York City ZIP code were instructed to “Please shop for another phone.”

AT&T has yet to explain the reason for the suspension of sales, which the AP reports began several days ago, beyond that it periodically “modifies” its distribution channels.

The AP had previously reported that the phone company said its data network is overburdened with iPhone users in  New York and San Francisco creating speculation that the sales blackout is a traffic management technique.

However, interestingly customers were always able to purchase iPhones in New York City stores and from Apple’s Web site, AT&T customers reported extensively online.

Customers in New York have complained for months of dropped calls and slow service.  An AT&T representative indirectly confirmed that such service was at least particularly responsible for the change in service.

The Consumerist, the blog that may have broken the news, quoted an AT&T customer service representative as saying “New York is not ready for the iPhone. … You don’t have enough towers to handle the phone.”

Mashable, the social media Web site, reported that some callers to AT&T were told that sales have been halted due to fraud.

Insurgents are using inexpensive software to breach one of America’s primary tools in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, senior defense and intelligence officials were quoted in a prominent American newspaper as saying.

The militants have been utilizing over-the-counter software, like SkyGrabber, sold for as little as $25.95 on the Internet to intercept and capture live video feeds coming from U.S. Predator drones, the Wall Street Journal reported late this week.  The feeds could allow America’s enemies to evade and monitor military operations.

The newspaper reports:

[T]he intercepts could give America’s enemies battlefield advantages by removing the element of surprise from certain missions and making it easier for insurgents to determine which roads and buildings are under U.S. surveillance.

The story is significant for two reasons:

• The first is that the Obama administration has come to rely largely on the drones in this two battlefronts.  Hacking into their operations could greatly reduce their effectiveness.  According to the Journal, drones account for 36 percent of the planes in the Air Force’s proposed 2010 budget.
• Insurgents have found yet another means to utilize cheap software to outmaneuver America’s trillion-dollar military budget.  And with more software being developed and becoming available to consumers around the world, the trend will likely grow. 

The prospect of a 6-year-old floating away to his potential doom captivated cable and Internet news consumers for hours on Thursday.  However, when it was determined the boy was hiding in a box in his home rather than a UFO-shaped balloon, questions began to emerge.

Throughout the live coverage of the event, numerous experts speculated about numerous things, such as the direction the balloon might be headed, what altitude it could potentially reach and how long a child could survive in such a craft. 

However, one thing I did not hear a peep about was the shape of the balloon.

There is a fascinating article on Wired.com about how experts might have easily deduced from the onset of the story that the balloon was likely not carrying a child.

Check out the complete article, complete with videos, images and calculations, here.