<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;mumbai&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:38:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Police In Mumbai Shutting Down Open WiFi</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0604453439.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0604453439.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Perhaps it's no surprise that, following the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, people are freaking out and blaming technology, as if that will prevent another terrorist attack.  First, there were the calls to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/0318383073.shtml">ban Google maps</a> and now a large number of police are sweeping through all of Mumbai to find open WiFi networks and <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/011509-mumbai-police-unsecured-wifi-networks.html?fsrc=netflash-rss" target="_new">get the owners to shut the networks down</a>.  Of course, there are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons for offering an open WiFi network, but it seems that no one is even considering that.  Because such networks were used in the past by terrorists and possibly could be again, they all must go.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0604453439.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0604453439.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090116/0604453439.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>blame-the-technology</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090116/0604453439</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:20:32 PST</pubDate>
<title>Indian Court Wants To Ban Google Earth In The Wake Of Mumbai Attacks</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/0318383073.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/0318383073.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You just knew this was going to happen eventually.  Pretty soon after the attacks last month in Mumbai concluded, reports started coming out about how the terrorists made use of a variety of modern technologies to plan and execute the attacks.  A few reports claimed that they had used Google Earth to familiarize themselves with the locations involved in the attacks (some reports had claimed that the terrorists had never been to Mumbai and just used Google Earth -- but other reports contradicted that).
<br /><br />
However, an Indian Court is now <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,464246,00.html" target="_new">calling for the software to be banned</a> saying that it "aids terrorists."  Of course, so do maps or photographs of hotels, such as those placed online by the hotels themselves, but people aren't overreacting and calling for a ban of those things as well.  Yes, we can understand the kneejerk reaction here, and the anger over these horrific attacks.  But, banning Google Earth isn't the answer.  If Google Earth weren't available, the attacks still would have happened.  It's just that the planning would have been different.  It's perfectly natural for people to lash out at technology used in a bad way after a tragedy, but hopefully the court won't overreact and will eventually realize the anger should be at the people who actually performed the attacks, not the tools they used.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/0318383073.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/0318383073.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081210/0318383073.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-please</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081210/0318383073</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:29:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Whether Twitter, Blogs Or Mainstream Media... Breaking News Can Get Facts Wrong</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1950293050.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1950293050.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There was a silly debate soon after the awful tragedy of the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last month, where people started questioning whether or not Twitter was a legitimate news source.  There were many reports from people on the scene via Twitter, and it was a fascinating (if somewhat depressing) "real-time" way of keeping up on some of what was happening.  But some criticized the reliance on Twitter-as-journalism by complaining that <a href="http://www.tomstechblog.com/post/Oliver-Wendell-Holmes-Turning-Over-In-His-Grave.aspx" target="_new">it wasn't journalism because Twitter reports got facts wrong</a>.  That sounds good, but if that's the actual standard, then, well, pretty much nothing is journalism.  As Slate is reporting, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2205948/pagenum/all/" target="_new">early reports from the mainstream press seemed to get much of the story wrong</a> as well. 
<br /><br />
 In the heat of an ongoing crisis, it's no surprise that details and facts are somewhat cloudy, and sources aren't (and often can't be) checked, but in the rush to get the news out, information, whether or not it's accurate, is going to get reported anyway.  That's not necessarily a bad thing -- so long as it's clear that the information hasn't yet been confirmed.  It's better to get the information out there.  However, as the Slate report notes, what newspapers could do, is do a much better job cleaning up after the fact -- as we suggested in our story last week about a newspaper's <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081203/0152403004.shtml">incorrect report</a> that quickly spread around the internet.  Rather than put up a correction, the newspaper simply deleted the wrong article and pretended it never happened.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1950293050.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1950293050.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081207/1950293050.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-what-happens-in-the-heat-of-the-moment</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081207/1950293050</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>