Former Malaysian Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is expecting the verdict (Update: He has just been acquitted) from a sodomy trial in which he has been named defendant. Politically, the verdict is significant, no less because Anwar is the current opposition leader and a guilty verdict will have significant impact on his political career and the next general elections expected to be called soon.

It is also significant because this is arguably the most politically-charged event in Malaysian since the Bersih 2.0 rally about half a year ago where the police department (Polis Di-Raja Malaysia or PDRM) took a social media beating for what some people claimed were inappropriate action.

Which leads me to the point of this post.

Over the past hour, and as I write this, the police department’s Twitter account @PDRMsia has been terribly active live tweeting from outside the courtroom. Among the things the Tweeter account has been sharing include arrival of public personalities, pictures of those who are present (supporters of Anwar, opponents etc) and more.

Assuming that the account is legit (considering how easy it is to set up a hoax account these days, and the fact that it appears linked to the PDRM Facebook page), its tweets this morning (or night, where I am) is very interesting to me. There has also been reports that the cops were planning on a “social media blitz” today.

For one, they appear to be very casual which, to me, isn’t very consistent with PDRM’s image. If you scroll back to its tweets from a couple of days ago, you might notice that the tweets are somewhat more formal in tone.

Secondly, there appears to be a lack of formal protocol – like the reference to Anwar Ibrahim without his title of Datuk Seri.

Third of all, the tweets appear rather neutral, which is a good thing considering the perception that the PDRM is often pro-Government, or at least heavily influenced by the Home Ministry. And its apparent bias against public demonstrations in its previous social media updates.

That said, there are a few things that interests me from a social media point of view.

1. Who is tweeting?

I am fascinated to know who is actually doing the live tweeting. I am suspecting that the person(s) is actually on location because the tweets are coming from a Blackberry, instead of say, web-based (which might indicate that messages are being sent back to a central place before disseminated).

This is interesting because I feel that there are security issues with allowing just anyone to “speak” from an official channel for the police department (some people have suggested that an agency was hired to do this live tweeting). I say this especially so having dealt with the police department before, and knowing that it is not easy to get a statement from officers let alone interviews.

2. What is their social media strategy?

Why are they doing this? While it is no longer uncommon for police departments in different parts of the world to tweet from location (or at least updates about certain locations), I wonder what they hope to achieve from posting tweets about people showing up in costumes, handing out masts of Anwar and children who have been brought along.

It has been suggested that this was the PDRM’s attempt to “log” all the happenings in case they find themselves needing to defend allegations against them, such as recently when cops were accused of violent acts against a student.

Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were posting safety and security related updates, but I can’t seem to figure these tweets out.

3. Are they aspiring journalists?

The biggest question in my mind really is whether it is the role of the PDRM to post live tweets along the tone that news agencies and the public (or citizen journalist, as they have been popularly dubbed) do or, like what I suggested earlier, only updates related to safety and security.

Personally, I would prefer them to take that role, only because it is directly related to their jobs. Also, this means that when they have some important updates or announcements, it wouldn’t be lost among tens (or hundreds) of random tweets.

Whatever it is, though, I would agree with many people on Twitterverse who feel that this is a good move from the PDRM, especially in engaging the public (although, they don’t appear to be responding to any tweets). Truth be told, it’s also not bad live tweeting (besides some bad grammar and empty tweets with just links to photos, and as my friend @juanajaafar just noted, inappropriate posting of photos of underaged children without parents consent) – there appears to be a nice collection of tweets about different things happening on the ground, and some of the comments are entertaining.

If anything, it shows that the PDRM is trying to remain relevant and whatever issues I have with its tweets, is something they can work on (if they feel my comments are justified, that is) for the future.

I came across her account yesterday after several people on my Twitter and Facebooks treams suggested I follow her, after her public chastising of her famous husband for posting an allegedly inappropriate tweet (Rupert himself has only been on Twitter for a few days).

Several major news organisations reported on that incident, and the fact that the “inappropriate” tweet was actually removed by Rupert, made the account appear legitimate.

Indeed, even the folks at Twitter got caught up in the hype and “Verified” her account, by putting a big huge blue tick next to her username – something usually reserved for major personalities who are sometimes get confused by accounts of impostors (or spoof accounts).

As I write this, the interwebs is buzzing with the news that the account is fake. The verified logo has been removed and the person behind the account has publicly acknowledged that she (or he!) is not the real Wendi Deng.

The tweet goes:

“Hello Twitter. As News International has finally come to their senses, it’s time to confirm that yes, this is a fake account. I’m not Wendi.”

There is also a lot of backlash about the person misleading the public, to which s/he is justifying as just having some “fun”.

I’m less concerned with his/her intention; rather, I wonder what implications this incident has on journalists who have in the past relied on the Verified accounts to assist in their reports?

It is not a new (well, relatively) phenomenon that journos and bloggers have relied on such accounts to write their stories (even sometimes using them as statements). In some cases, personalities have turned to Twitter to make announcements and respond to news reports about them.

How can we now trust that Twitter will get it correct considering the fact that – and this is according @wendi_deng – there was no attempt at verification from the actual person who owns the account (in this case, that is)?

S/he claimed in a Tweet:

“And you have to wonder even more why Twitter verified this account for a full day. I never received any communication from them about this.”

According to Twitter’s help page for Verified Accounts, “Any account with a Verified Badge is a Verified Account. Twitter uses this to establish authenticity of well known accounts so users can trust that a legitimate source is authoring their Tweets.”

The site doesn’t mention what the verification process is like(although, previously, though a beta programme, users can apply to be verified).

There is a big gap in that trust now, and I think journalists would have to go back to old methods of fact-checking, or at least find new ones, to prevent stories from major news organisations like this one about Wendi Deng flirting with Ricky Gervais, or this one about her ticking off her husband from being published.

The Financial Times’ Tim Bradshaw (if it really is him), just sent out a tweet that reads:

“Twitter PR: “can confirm @wendi_deng account was mistakenly verified for a short period of time. We apologize for the confusion this caused”

Nothing yet on @Twitter or the official Twitter blog. And “mistaken” is not good enough an excuse, I think. Twitter will need to explain themselves more, and well at that, to regain that trust.

p/s To be fair, some journalists did do extra fact checking, despite the Verified status. Apparently, even News International didn’t know it was’t the real Wendi Deng. BBC’s Ross Hawkins (allegedly, in the spirit of this post) tweeted saying:

“The @wendi_deng twitter account is NOT genuine. The News Intl s/person who told me it was last night has just called to say she was wrong.”

In Kuala Lumpur, you’re bound to find Internet almost anywhere in the city. If you’re walking past a row of shops, chances are you can turn your wifi on and find a connection from a nearby restaurant or store – and this is usually free. In other countries, I tend to look for the nearest Apple store to “borrow” the wifi-service when I desperately need to get online.

It would be lying if I said I never took KL’s easy access to the Internet for granted, but at the same time, I appreciate the fact that it is value-added service by the owners of restaurants and stores.

Picture taken from miniyo73 on Flickr under the Creative Common License.

Perhaps this is why I am a little uncomfortable after reading reports (or another here from TNW) that Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (City Hall) has made it compulsory from April 2012 for restaurants (larger than 120 sq m) to be wifi-equipped if they wanted to have their business license approved.

As a customer, and one who relies a lot on the Internet, this would seem like the perfect implementation. I can see some benefits – from convenience for the casual users to being a great service for people who work from outside the traditional office settings. It helps to entertain anyone who is waiting for a someone else.

However, I would like to suggest a few questions for consideration:

1. Will this encourage eating alone?

I’m starting with this because it’s the flimsiest of issues but one that I think is still pertinent. Ever since smartphones (and by extension, social media) hit the mainstream, there has been numerous arguments about how there is much less face-to-face interactions than previously.

The most common complain is from family members who have meals together, but at any point of the meal, someone or other will be on their phone – either replying emails, text messages, Tweets or updating the Facebook statuses.

Having access to the Internet so widespread would encourage this behaviour and many other “anti-social” scenarios technophobes can come up with.

2. Who’s going to pay for the service?

The reports do not mention if the services these restaurants would be free or not. This could lead to several issues, monetary wise.

First of all, if the service is free, then the burden is on the restauranteurs to pay for the service. There is a chance that this cost will be included into the price of the meals which means that people who are not using the service too would have to pay for something they do not use. It would be unfair to expect owners to take money out of their own pockets (unless, as I said earlier, if this was part of their marketing strategy to provide a value-added service).

If this service is chargeable, then I see two potential issues:

a. Would the restaurants have to run their own backend payment system? Or would they rely on current providers for this service? If it’s the latter, would there just be one company (leading to monopoly issues) where it will be easy for users to sign up for just one account, or many companies which would give users the dilemma of having multiple accounts etc. I’m not even going to consider how inconvenient one time payments are going to be.

b. Will this then lead to current places that offer free wifi – restaurants, McDonald’s, Starbucks and more – to start charging? After all, if other people are charging, why shouldn’t they? After all, in the case of McDonald’s and Starbucks, Internet access is chargeable in some countries, if I am not mistaken.

3. Why doesn’t DBKL stick to it’s current WirelessKL?

The reports also mention the fact that DBKL had a two-year contract with Packet-One Networks (the people behind P1 Wimax) to provide 1,500 free wifi spots around the city which will be discontinued once the contract ends.

I wonder why DBKL doesn’t just stick to this arrangement (unless Packet-One doesn’t want to continue providing the service)? It would then make wifi available in generic areas instead of just restaurants and there would be the burden on the restauranteurs.

Then again, if you’re anything like me and have tried logging on to the WirelessKl service in the past, you would realise that it never barely works anyway, so maybe this is a good thing.

4. What about the telcos?

I also wonder what implications this would have on telcos who offer mobile Internet services. Let’s not talk about wifi-on-the-go dongles, but this policy could affect the number of people who sign up for mobile Internet on the phones.

This might be a long shot, but it could have implications on pricing and packages from telcos in the future – if there are less people signing up for the service, then competition is less stiff and current customers (like myself) might not get great deals out of it.

Granted, it could go either way, as these telcos might need to make their packages even more enticing to encourage people to keep their mobile Internet service, or to sign up for it.

5. Should we really be legislating these things? 

My final question is whether we should be legislating these sorts of things. It’s one thing to make necessities compulsory when one wants a business license (such as fire exits, crowd control policies, health and cleaniness) but I worry about what kind of precedent this might set in terms of things that can be policed by City Hall in the future.

The intention by Mayor Tan Sri Ahmad Fuad Ismail might be great – after all, technology and doing things on the Internet is all the rage at the moment – but truth be told, I would rather City Hall take care of other issues more pertinent to our daily lives. Or, if there was the need for the technology focus, how about putting access to the Internet in schools or providing the urban poor with such access so as to close the digital divide?

Note: When the plans were first discussed, some restauranteurs commented that they were fine with it, according to this report.