A C|Net article reports that Apple obtained a preliminary ruling that bloggers who disclosed possible trade secrets are not entitled to keep the source of that information private and confidential. The traditional press has long fought this battle to keep sources confidential. Some state laws provide protection for the press, but this case may suggest similiar protections are not available to blogs. The issue will continue to ripen because many blog sites take on a very press like quality, complete with levels of editors, advertisers and the like. Meanwhile, some mom and pop small town newspapers may be less professional. Interesting times.

Eweek has an nice article in which they detail that search advertisers like Google and Yahoo are becoming more concerned about abuse of their advertising systems, both by companies competing for keywords and also by adsense type participants trying to earn more revenue by arranging fake click throughs for ads on their site. I can see the danger in this for these companies that make the majority of their revenue from search advertising and the like.

I’ve inadvertently clicked on a couple of the ads on our site in the past myself, I was trying to get the URL for that site so I could add it to the site filter to stop competitors advertising their products on our site (like other counter service retailers). I’m now mildly concerned that I’m going to get into hot water with Google for following Google’s advice about how to block ads you don’t want to display on your site (you have to paste the URL to the competing site into the adsense “URL filter” to block them, sometimes the only way to get the URL is to follow the ad, other times you can try and copy and paste the URL from the ad, but the last time I tried to do that, I accidentally triggered the link because I have the “Super drag and go” Firefox extension installed which allows you to follow links in a new tab by just dragging the link a couple of millimetres). This is going to become a big issue in the courts at some stage, and I’m worried both that the guilty will get away with it, and that the innocent can get dragged into court over it. Considering the small amount of revenue these ads generate most of the time, I’m starting to wonder if it’s worth the risk and I for one would like some reassurance and guidance from Google on the issue. This Eweek article goes into much more detail on the issue.

Segway released a couple of new models, including one for golfers and other off road riders, in it’s 2005 line. They are also now starting to offer color. Unless I had a job that required me to cover a lot of space or bad legs, I don’t see myself enjoying one of these. They do however allow many people to work more efficiently. Google apparently has several and some consider it one of the ultimate geek toys.

At least not for any of the reasons sited by Scott Granneman in his March 3, 2005 article: Where is Google Headed? As the bad guys start using Google more and more, the company wrestles with some new security and privacy issues with AutoLink.

Scott suggests that Google should somehow stop bad guys from exploiting sites with security flaws, giving an example where Google stopped the activity after just ten hours. Ten hours! That isn’t a very long time for something that was unknown until the day it hit. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns as the old saying goes. Likewise, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Google didn’t do anything wrong. The authors who created the security problem did. Bad things happen to good people sometimes. That is just life.

He goes on to question the ethics of Autolink, something that only works with Internet Explorer thus far, adding links determined from term searching the page. As he points out, it only works IF EVERY TIME the reader manually hits the autolink button (thereby indicating he wants the auto links.) Google is not rearranging the page, changing the text, or doing anything else untoward — it is doing what the reader asks, providing other possibly relevant links.

I need better examples than these to convince me Google did anything wrong on these issues.

A hacker gained access to the ApplyYourself system that handles admissions applications for Harvard, Stanford, Duke, MIT and other similiarly successful business schools. Apparently some students for whom a decision had been made were able to get a preview of the decision. The schools apparently see the previews as an ethical breach sufficient to warrant a reversal of the admissions. I wonder if it has occurred to them that a possible source of the hacking instuctions might be someone hoping to displace other students? Read the AP story for more details.

Microsoft won a battle in the United States Court of Appeals yesterday. Microsoft was alleged to have infringed a patent in the development of the Internet Explorer development. The “reversal gives Microsoft the opportunity to tell the jury the whole story of how this technology was developed and to present evidence that shows that Eolas did not invent this technology, and that it was developed by others, particularly Pei-yuan Wei and his colleagues at O’Reilly and Associates,” according to the Microsoft Press Release.

The entire opinion in Eolas Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Microsoft Corp. is available in pdf format.

In November, a jury in Loudon County Virginia convicted a brother and sister of violating the state’s tough Anti-Spam Statute. This week, according to the Leesburg Today news site, the Judge dismissed the case against the sister, overturning the jury verdict finding a lack of evidence to convict her. The brother, Jeremy Jaynes, is accused of sending 10,000 unsolicited commercial emails in a three day period. The sister, Jessica DeGroot, was alleged to have purchased domain names that were then used in the sending process. Finding that the only proof introduced against here was that she had a name on a credit card, and a lack of proof that the card was used during the period in question to purchase any domain names, the Judge dismissed the charge indicating he felt the jury may have become confused regarding the brother and sister pair.

Jeremy Jaynes attorney says he will appeal the decision. The trial judge, refusing to act on Jaynes’ dismissal motions, has set his sentencing for April 8th, 2005. At that time it is expected that Jaynes will be sentenced to incarceration.

The case is triable in Virginia because many of the targeted recipients had AOL addresses, and AOL has processing operations centered in that jurisdiction. One wonders if others will open processing facilities in Virginia to avail themselves of the tough anti-spam act.