"Reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term of art. Don't expect it to bear any relationship to how anyone would normally interpret the phrase. As a trivial example, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in another person's home, even if they're not around.

No, you don't, because just like with email you entrusted a third party to deliver an unencrypted message for you. Completely erases your "reasonable expectation of privacy". Welcome to the law.

The content of your call may have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the fact of the call does not.

Sorry man, misread your comment. Totally true.

SUV's are pretty fuel-efficient per passenger mile if you fill them up with people and stuff. They're just bad commuter vehicles.

All those suburban moms drive SUV's because it's a vehicle with a lot of utility - seats four in comfort, with plenty of room for luggage and supplies, plus you can use it for trucking things around. People buy cars to account for all their usage, not just the most common parts.

Because VistA is a pain to implement and maintain. Not every hospital has the IT resources of the federal government available. And it's not that easy to use.

So you want to live in coastal California, with all its conveniences and mild weather and high-paying jobs, but you want a night sky that looks like rural West Virginia?

I agree with you, but you're arguing with an AC who has a mindset that works very, very well in the sort of tribal environment in which our species evolved. Arguing with evolution may be satisfying, but it's rarely rewarding.

His voters didn't vote for George Bush.

The MPAA most likely doesn't care about winning - they just want to get the case to proceed to discovery. Hood doesn't care about winning, because he will claim that the tort case he should file is too complex for the small staff of the state AG's office to try. He will then put the case in the hands of a big-time plaintiff's attorney, who will probably be able to find something in all that discovered material to force a big payout. The settlement will be reached, and the AG will have gotten 20% in the hands of someone who will undoubtedly hire him on after he leaves office.

That is exactly what happened with the last guy in that office.

At least they have the decency to go dormant when the temperature drops below 70 or so. Cf. Minnesota or Wisconsin.

The AG is a Democrat.

The AG is a Democrat, and he is attempting to repeat the extraordinarily profitable strategy used by one of his predecessors to enrich friends and allies at the expense of a large business - in that case, the tobacco industry, here Google. He was funded by plaintiff's attorneys eager for a cut of a large settlement check, and elected by people who like to sue those with more money than themselves.

There are places in Mississippi that functioned as tort mills for a long time, although most of them are not populated with people who look like him.

Yes. If you could replace any of them with a lower-cost alternative that worked as well, or that saved you more than the cost differential, you would.

The people employed at that storefront to provide physical security for the goods might be necessary to enable the profit-making portions of the business to operate, but that doesn't mean they aren't a cost center.