The argument is that a cop pulling you over is a lot different than a camera snapping a picture. The slippery slope argument applies here. If we have cameras at traffic lights looking for crime, why not put cameras on all streets. Take it one step further, and why not put cameras in people's homes? If they're not breaking the law, they have nothing to fear, right? I think it's a good idea that a cop should have to witness a traffic violation to cite the driver. Automation in police enforcement is a very scary idea for those of us concerned with the decay of our rights to privacy.

Reading a public web posting and running somebody's code are different things entirely.

Usage of the software constitutes acceptance of the EULA. Displaying it during install is a formality. Have your cat, drunk underage neighbor, automated device or whatever click "I Agree" all day long. But as whenever you're using the software, you're agreeing to the terms.

Actually the site you mentioned DOES process your login through SSL. If you look at the form action, it is sent to a HTTPS address. Now looking at the web page, the blank form is sent unencrypted, but the login is handled over SSL. That's the way some banks operate to avoid the sluggish load times with HTTPS compared to regular HTTP.