Information Law Possum

Interesting post on the Wired Blog Network about the website www.drabandabic.com. Some interesting aspects of that story:

a) It’s astonishing how quickly users create content (in casu: hoaxes) and how fast this gets noticed by large mainstream media (search for dragan dabic website on Google News). Karadzic was arrested no more than 40 hours ago.

b) Hoaxes can be uncovered very quickly by other users.

c) The use of the Whois Privacy Protection Service by the domain name registrant was useless: First, the whois entry still shows the date of the last update — July 22nd; second, the fact that the registrant used that service kind of reverses the burden of proof that the website isn’t a hoax.

d) It might have been profitable for the hoaxer to add Google ads to the website.

This blog is officially still on hold (until I’m finished with my PhD thesis …), but this is worth posting immediately:

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court — at least its 2nd Social Security Law Division (II. Sozialversicherungsrechtliche Abteilung) — has started to quote Wikipedia in 2007:

• In a decision from May 3, 2007 (I 871/06) the Court relied on Wikipedia’s description of volleyball moves in order to assess whether the appellant who played volleyball was unable to work due to a disability in his arms.
• In a decision from January 18, 2008 (K 136/06, published as FCD 134 V 72, cons. 3.1) the Court took the German Wikipedia entry for “Autoscooter” (German-English pidgin for bumper car) as evidence that collisions in bumper cars are almost innocuous, which led it to the conclusion that losing a tooth in a bumper car is an accident under federal social security law.
• In a decision from January 7, 2008 (9C_286/2007) the Court referred to an expert opinion which stated that hyperthyreosis morbus Basedow causes depression, adding that a Wikipedia printout which had been submitted by the appellant stated the same.

These three judgments have been drafted by different clerks of the same department of the Federal Supreme Court that decides matters of social security. In this area of law, legal proceedings are not entirely driven by the parties, but the courts may to a certain extent collect evidence as well. Civil and criminal legal proceedings being totally different in this respect, the probative force of Wikipedia entries in these field still remains unclear.

A funny observation: It’s now 2.40 p.m., and for about an hour now dozens of cars are performing a chorus of horns in downtown St. Gallen where I live.

This is extrordinary: Weddings (an occasion where our Italian immigrants love to do this) take place on Saturdays in Switzerland. There’s no soccer game involving Italy, Croatia, Serbia, or Turkey either. I was wondering until I remembered that Kosovo could declare its independence within the next days. So I checked the online news — and yes, a parliamentary meeting has been scheduled for 3 p.m. in Pristina to formally declare Kosovo’s independence.

What’s remarkable about this from an information point of view is that the 1-bit chorus of horns serves here as a token for a more complex message (”Kosovo is declaring its independence”), and that the internet helps outsiders like me decipher that message.

Like almost everything, this issue involves an interesting question of information law: Honking is of course only permitted as a warning signal in road traffic. When a Kosovar immigrant uses his horn to spread the message of independence, may he then invoke the freedom of speech if he is fined? I’m inclined to say yes, even if this doesn’t change anything in the result, namely that the restriction is certainly justified.

Happy new year to all of you out there who read my blog!

In 2007, among others, a new form (or genre?) of literature has emerged, namely satire in the guise of an online product review. Here’s a fine example (hat tip to James): reviews of the BIC ballpoint pen in black. Enjoy!