I find that odd ;) What is the discount when pleading guilty instead of being found guilty? This sounds like blackmailing to me.

Two ways of being guilty:
1) Pleaded guilty: You are guilty without any doubt - this will result in a lighter sentence.
2) Found guilty: The court find it more likely that you are guilty than not - this will result in a harsher sentence.

The system encourages the defendant to plead guilty not based on guilt, but based on odds.

Oh well. It just sounds so wrong to me, maybe it's just me :)

From TFA:

Why would he face LESS time when pleading guilty? How does this make any kind of sense?

(In my country that would almost always result in a harsher sentence)

Or maybe your life is coming to an end? :)

This discussion is so interesting and insightful. I can feel my life getting better for every word I read. Please keep it going.

On options?

In my country it would go like this:

Head of state dials up a very large backbone provider:
HoS: "Hello, will you please turn off your routers?"
VLBP: "No."
HoS: "Ahem. I don't think I've made myself clear. Turn off your routers."
VLBP: "No."
HoS: "Listen. Either you switch them off NOW or I will make sure that you will NEVER get any business from the state EVER again and I will make sure you get the FULL audit for the last 50 years of accounting."
VLBP: "Ehh... Maybe we could have a little "accident" knocking out all our routers for some time."
HoS: "Thank you. Pleasure doing business with you. Your multi-billion money contract will be renewed next year."

Same result as a "kill switch" - less work.

Is someone doing this?

Are you kidding? How about these young people walk or ride the bicycle? Or are young people not fat enough?

I had a SAAB back in the day with a computer-controlled turbocharger. I don't remember the specifics, but it was a 900 model. I had a black turbo controller. If you had the red box, you got a few extra pounds of boost. That was the only difference between two trim levels as far as the engine was concerned, same internals.

I still have a 900 turbo - wonderful car :)

The box you're thinking of is the APC (Automatic Performance Control) unit that adjusts boost level according to engine knock and other parameters. It's really easy to modify for better performance. Around here it's hard to find an APC unit that isn't modded.

Here's a page describing the mod:
http://900aero.com/main/tech_main_apcmod.htm

This could take rickrolling to a whole new level.

As for "personal data", how is Google to know that data you've broadcasted for all to see is personal?

I don't expect much from Google. In fact I would expect them to say something along the line of what you're saying now: "It's the network operators own fault! If they are too stupid to secure their network, they can expect nothing. They have broadcasted their data, we just took advantage of that fact. Now shut up or we close down our offices in your country".

- Or Google could simply obey local laws, but I don't expect them to do that anytime soon. Or later.

I don't think we'll ever agree on this ;)

This is more like if you get the word "loser" tattooed on your forehead, and then you demand that the government pass a law that says that not only can nobody take pictures of you that show the tattoo, and not only can they not comment on it, but they aren't even allowed to register, in the privacy of their own mind, that you have that tattoo on your forehead.

Where I'm living, this would already be illegal on at least two levels:

1. It's illegal to take photographs of someone without their consent, if they are not in a public place (and even in public it's only legal to take "overview"-photos, not portraits).
2. It's illegal to register personal data without consent.

I think it's a surprise for Google that not all of the world has the same privacy laws and privacy expectations that they're used to ;)

Welp.

What response do you think you'll get from law enforcement if you tell them you left your bike unlocked outside Walmart all afternoon?

I was hoping for a reaction like "We're so sorry to hear that. Let us write up a report right away".

Similarly, you can definitely be found liable for damages caused by your vehicle if you leave the keys in it unlocked. You have a personal responsibility to protect and manage your own property and information, and no law in the world can protect you if you're willfully careless.

"Wilfully careless". I think this is where we differ :)

(By the way, in my country you would be laughed out of court if you tried to sue the owner of a stolen car)

Whether or not they are the good guys, laws that attempt to contravene physics are a bad idea. If the packets had been encrypted, it wouldn't have mattered that Google captured them--without the key, they're just noise. You could pass a law saying that capturing packets broadcast without encryption is illegal, or you could pass a law saying that if you want your packets to be private, you should encrypt them, and if you don't encrypt them, you have no expectation of privacy. Which of these two laws do you honestly think makes the most sense?

Let me rewrite that:
You could pass a law saying that stealing bikes with or without locks is illegal, or you could pass a law saying that if you want to keep your bike, you should lock it, and if you don't lock it, you have no expectation of keeping your bike. Which of these two laws do you honestly think makes the most sense?

But making it illegal is a really expensive way to solve the problem, and it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, which is that people are sending their personal information over the network in the clear.

You're wrong ;) The fundamental problem is not unencrypted networks. The fundamental problem is that Google can (legally in many places) harvest and use this information for whatever purpose they like - and some people are blaming the people operating the wireless networks. I find that absurd.

Question for extra credit:
If we imagined a company, with access to massive computation power, captured encrypted traffic and later brute-forced deciphered everything. Will your reaction be: "Well, it's their own fault. They should have used stronger encryption"?

Laws against this won't stop the bad guys (hackers). They will only unfairly punish good guys (like Google) whenever they make a mistake.

Google is intercepting and logging personal data traffic for whole countries at a time, and you think they are the good guys?!