George Ou posted what I hope is the last commentary on the Apple wireless debacle from last year, which I still think was the biggest security news of 2006. What I like about Ou’s article is how unassuming it is (the digs on Apple aside). I watched the Maynor video last year when it broke and never once thought they were attacking Apple directly. Anyone who watched the video could have seen that.

The problem came from the “blogosphere.” Everyone wants to trump others and so when news breaks they attempt to make the most sensational deal about it; a case of news “reporters” trying to make news instead of just reporting it. Pretty quickly, one post claims an attack on Apple, and another one claims lying and scandal, and everyone starts posting willy-nilly third-, fourth-, and fifth-hand information without really knowing jack. Pretty soon, small responses of wrong-doing are muffled out by the masses clamoring and all up in passionate arms about a non-issue.

Ethics in blogging is going to continue to be an interesting topic. In addition, ethics in information usage will be interesting. Throughout history the victors have always written history and made the laws and beliefs. But what about things like Wikipedia? What if they get something wrong? But what if 98% of people believe it to be fact when it really is false? Can that wronged person ever prevail, or does majority (the victor) rule? Interesting questions in our new age…