GP's statement does apply more to plaintiffs than defandants, who are more likely to be awarded costs if they win. Really, that doesn't go overlooked or ignored.

I think he's (badly) trying to say that you shouldn't repurpose media that was used for sensitivie info without sanitizing it.

It has nothing to do with age, it's about the skill level required to do what they do.

Oversimplifying or glossing over things is perfectly fine, deliberate misinformation is reprehensible and only causes future problems. The level of detail you go into should vary for the target audience, but never the accuracy. Obviously, talking about a TV show - where everything from law and medicine to the operation of cars is usually completely flawed - is one thing, but I'd definitely never defend the idea of deliberately miseducating people IRL just because you don't think they'd understand. That's how people were taught the improper terms and processes they'll misuse in the future. For example, the layman could probably understand something like "I used a specialized software package to exploit a security hole that let me get into their system and then take it over."

Objectively, provided there's enough evidence to make somebody a suspect, yes, they should absolutely, positively be questioned during a legitimate criminal investigation. That's the whole point of whistleblowing, that position or power doesn't mean you shouldn't be held accountable for wrongdoing. Stop trying to make an emotional appeal against reason, your argument here is "you shouldn't face questioning for a crime if you think it's just because they're 'harassing' you". "But what if it was you?" isn't a point, it's a fallacy.

Are you actually arguing that you shouldn't be held accountable for a crime committed in one country, if it isn't illegal in others? That's ridiculous. So is the idea that they're only extraditing him because it's for questioning and not yet prosecution, the fact that they're willing to obviously speaks volumes in disagreement. That doesn't make any sense, at all. They know what the case is about, there's zero reason to believe they'd extradite someone for investigation but not prosecution, it would be completely ass-backwards. If they thought the case was serious enough and strong enough to extradite him for questioning, then there's no doubting whatosever that they'd do it for an indictment.

Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes. People know this stuff. Some of your reasoning is kind of flawed, though.

While Interpol's involvement was questionable, your wikipedia cut-and-paste of what they "normally do" is not the limitation of what they can do. The operative part of that summary is that it started with "primarily works on", or in your copy, "normally works on". Do you really think "rape" investigations go international often enough to make that list? They assist in international criminal investigations. This is a criminal investigation into someone who's travelled to another country. It's uncommon and seems beneath them, but it isn't against any rules and it doesn't defy logic. The questionable part is that they're forbidden from getting involved in political crimes, but as much as the conspiracy theorists might argue that's why this criminal investigation exists, it's not directly and explicitly relevant - even if it is the motivation behind pusuing the crime, that doesn't mean the crime didn't occur.

And it certainly isn't any surprise that a prosecutor who didn't want to prosecute would be replaced with one who did.

As for the video conferencing, while it may be questionable that the prosecutor didn't want to compromise, it's much more questionable that a suspect would refuse to come back for questioning. It's also difficult, if not outright stupid, to question a suspect when they're outside of your jurisdiction, let alone in another country with different laws, rights and legal processes.

You really don't get how the legal process works at all, do you? You don't charge somebody until the investigation is over. People who are extradited fall into two camps - those who are suspects in an uncharged crime that's still under investigation and are wanted for questioning, and those who have already been charged because the prosecutors feel they already have enough evidence to win the case. Neither is abnormal. The only dichotomy between those two "points" is the false one you've created, based on your lack of education on basic legal procedure.

As for having already been questioned, no one is ignoring that. Because it isn't abnormal to bring a suspect back in for questioning during an ongoing investigation. Just like the fact that you think people are ignoring that he hasn't charged yet, this isn't something that anyone has missed, it's something you clearly don't seem to realize doesn't matter. You don't know anything that everybody else doesn't. Yes, he asked before he left, but there's zero expectation there that he would absolutely never have to speak to them again.

Though it is funny to see you complain about indicting or trying people in absentee, yet claim his extradition is an evil conspiracy because he hasn't been indicted in absentee. That's what "being charged" is, being indicted for a crime. These two (and more) specific terms can apply specifically to different levels/types of crimes, but they're the same step in the process. They're what you do when you've completed your investigation and want to take the suspect to trial. Not while the investigation is incomplete.

As for the rest of your drivel, baseless assumptions and logical fallacies, thanks for making it clear how irrational you are on this subject. "Police state apologist bullshit"? I "must be a fan of... assassination lists"? Dispute what people say, not your crazy assumptions about what ideologies you baselessly attribute to them.

Did I do so on Chinese soil? Is there evidence of that? It there an active investigation into it? Is it up to snuff with our extradition treaty with China? Because that would be the process. You don't charge somebody with a crime until you're done investigating it and are ready to put them on trial. It's pretty basic legal procedure, somebody is virtually always going to be wanted for questioning before charges are actually pressed against them. It's sad to see so many people trying be proactive about the law and freedom, yet fail to understand basic fundamental concepts like that. Being charged is not part of an investigation, it's the result of successful investigation.

Cue the conspiracy theorists who don't realize you don't have to be. You can be extradited for questioning, you don't often charge somebody before you've questioned them.

The kind that uses security templates and group policy to control browser settings and preferences? You know, basic enterprise IT administration tools.

Even looking the entire way up this comment tree, no one mentions IE6. I'm not even talking about IE7 in particular, just the general concept that not letting your employees install whatever web browser they want isn't "anal", it's common sense and standard practice. But playing along, you'll find that there are settings and restrictions that address the vastly overwhelming amount of those vulnerabilities, which is why it's handy to use the aforementioned security controls to keep your users from being able to do the dumb things that cause problems, like run unsigned code, install software willy-nilly, etc. Most of those vulnerabilities get exploited because Joe Schmoe doesn't know or care how to address them, not because they're impossible to mitigate.

... Not wanting users to install their own software, at their own discretion, for their own personal use on a business's computer, likely circumventing security and network management/usage policies is "anal"?

And remember all the outrage when a lot of web banking sites /etc. used to require IE? It wasn't that long along, and there was plenty of outrage about how people should be free to use whatever browser they want to use, that it isn't fair to do so, etc., even when most of those sites were doing so because they were using security controls that only worked in IE. If it wasn't fair to require one browser then, why is it fair to tax one browser now?

Self-defined phrases like that are typical in laws and contracts, etc. Prisoners would be included in "all people", but should they have a right to unmonitored internet access? What about school-aged children having the right to an uncensored [school-provided] internet? What about organizations, do they not have the right to freely associate online, or protect their identity? The purpose of "meaningless terms" like "digital citizen" is that you give them meaning.

Generalizations are bad, mmkay? There are more politicians like Issa and Amash out there.

So you think it's unnecessary because you don't understand something you refuse to read?

You do realize that's the Fourth Amendment, right? You're citing an amendment as support of your argument that good laws shouldn't need to be amended? But let's play along. There are innumerable federal/state laws and legal precedent that detail what is and isn't considered probable cause, reasonable search and siezure, exceptions, etc. These things are all explicitly defined at lower levels, a constitutional right is the broad concept that more specific legal code must comply with. Detailed, granular laws about what does and doesn't make for legitimate search and seizure most definitely exist, the Fourth Amendment is not the beginning and the end of all legal code regarding it.