This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with the fact that ignorance is not a valid opinion. If you don't know and aren't qualified, you should believe the consensus. Because as far as you can tell it is the best current bet.

Now, that sounds real scientific and logical, but to some that sounds like religion. If you don't know and aren't qualified, you should believe the consensus? That sounds a lot like what a religion would say to doubtful or non-believers. In the past, scientists proved their discoveries. Now, the general public is urged to just shut-up and believe, because we are not qualified. That is what is suspicious in the whole debate, let alone that it is becoming increasingly clear that there is no consensus as once claimed, and possibly there never was.

And why was access to that management interface allowed from the Internet, presumably?

Certain Cisco switches have limited lifetime warraties now also.

No, I didn't RFTA, but I would have to assume that the law is geared towards harrassing speech at a particular person, not a group, company, policy, product, religion, or I would even say, race, sexual perversion, etc. This is specifically with the knowledge and understanding that companies are considered "people" for certain legal issues - they would be exempt from this particular type of harrassment. To use your example, you can criticize the KKK all you want, but if you are vindictive against a particular KKK member by the name of John Doe who lives at 123 KKK Lane and repeatedly harrass them, they should have some recourse to spot that harrassment. You should not be able to "stalk" them on-line any more than you could stalk them in the normal sense of the term. Again, without RTFA I can't say for sure, but if this is just bringing reaction to activities on-line on par with the reaction people would have with similar actions outside of the Internet then I wouldn't have a problem with it. If it is attempting to make activities on-line illegal, when similar activities are not illegal now outside of the Internet, then it would be a growth of government, which I would be against.

Electricity does not flow through cables at the speed of light. It is more like 2/3rd the speed of light...

That is not what was originally requested. What was originally requested was to have the provider do the search. Uploading keywords that the provider can search, or any other sort of index, is also not what was requested. What was requested was to have the provider search the actual data, not some cleartext index or keywords attached to the encrypted data. Your solution also makes little to no sense to upload the encrypted index if you are just going to download it again to search it locally. You may as well just keep the index locally, and not upload it at all. If you do that, well then the provider isn't doing the search at all now, is it? You are doing the search, and the provider is just storing the encrypted files. It just servers up file 000001 when requested. So, doing exactly what was requested is not theoretically possible. Doing something else that was not requested is of course theoretically possible, because you get to define what those requirements are.

Obviously, you don't live in areas like South Florida, where there are radiation sensing devices clearly visible on the Turnpike, Sawgrass Expressway, and other major roads designed to detect this exact thing. I don't see that they are something that the US culture is inherently predisposed against tolerating either. If for some reason you have some highly radioactive material in your car, and the sensors pick it up, and you get pulled over (or worse), I don't think the people in the area would have many complaints about invasion of privacy or anything similar. I would imagine, but don't know, that there are similar detection devices in the subways of major cities across America. At least I would hope so...

There are limits that the OS, or GUI environment, can place on copying the data. Sure, a doctor can take a picture of the screen, but how likely is that, really? If you don't allow copy and paste within the application, and you deny screen capture, then that would avoid 95% of the issue. There will be that 5% that takes a picture of the screen, if that, but then you are talking about a concerted effort to copy patient data and that can be handled by laws or regulations.

Nope, I've installed networks in hospitals for the last 15 years, and had the pleasure of working all over the US in areas that both were forced to use union labor for cable pulls and those that were not. My comments come from personal experience, not some far-right cable news guys.

And the ironic part is that the most likely reason why they had to wait to get someone out to pull some basic cables is that they probably had to use union labor. And the government was responsible for allowing unions.

I don't think it is actually that difficult to create a system that does not allow copying of patient data into the clipboard. You should be able to prevent screen shots when critical data is displayed also. I'm uninterested enough to avoid spending the time looking up whether this is actually possible with the existing Windows or X API's, but there's no reason why this functionality can't be provided.

In Florida, five years, after which it is probably useless anyway.

If you don't like this, call them at 888-549-3776, and go on their web site and write a complaint and ask for a refund if you ISP is paying them, and charging you, and you don't want their "service." If you really want to make a difference, pick a random day of the week and time and schedule a reminder to call them once a week on this topic. It does cost them, and they will take notice, if enough people call them enough times on a regular basis. A short-lived complaint blast that goes away after a day, or week, will either not be noticed, or ignored because it was a one-time event. You can also contact your congress critter and tell them you would like them to investigate such practices and put a stop to it. But again, it would be better if you regularly brought this to their attention rather than a one-time event.

ISP's give preferential treatment to traffic to/from speed test sites, so what it says you will get is what you will get only when accessing the speed test sites.

You do realize that almost all ISP's already have preferential treatment of traffic to speakeasy and any of the other known speed testing sites, right?