Have you considered the possibility that you're being stalked by someone with a personal cloaking device?

Yes and no. The PDF exploits that were used in the past were patched by the jailbreak community. There are cydia packages which closed it on your newly jailbroken device, the assumption being you had your SHSH blobs backed up for a restore to a vulnerable vanilla firmware should you need it. I'll admit it's been awhile since I read up on it, but I think that all the Jailbreakme's used a userland exploit to Jailbreak, and then recommended patching immediately, less the exploit be used against them.

Could you imagine though? I know in dormitories people will print to wherever on the network, regardless of whether or not they have a printer. You could probably see some cool stuff.

I kind of get what you're saying here, but that's really weak justification for functions that are difficult to claim that a user consciously opted in or out of. Analogies aside (since there will be no little black dress of an analogy for this), what it comes down to is should Google respect the browser security settings? Whether or not it is part of theToS ( and Privacy), Google is still using a work around to circumvent the security settings determined by the user's browser. As was noted by one of the above posters, I don't think you can have the unread Google policies apply while the unchecked security policies do not, and even if were so, no part of the agreement as listed on their ToS suggests that you offer permission to circumvent your security policy to do so.

IANAL (as all posts should be prefaced), but per Google's own Terms of Service, they should not do anything or discontinue service until you meet the necessary requirements. On top of that, the "you opt in when you use Google's Services" idea, that the cookie is of benefit to the user not detriment, is also not justification for making this a universal process. Perhaps someone really does want the ad services, but another may not. The work around seems to affect both users in that instance, regardless of their stance.

Should they put it up our of charity and the good of their hearts? No, absolutely not, but as consumers, we should have the choice when we do and do not pay, and automatically opting you into payment, whether it's a monetary payment or my privacy, is removing that choice.

There are many websites which openly ask you to please disable your adblocker when you access them, and willing participants should do just that. Ars Technica did something like this last year some time (http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars), and I feel that this is true of most things. Whether it's a news site I like, or a particular streamer for a game, if I find the content useful and I wish to support the person, I disable the blocker on that domain.

What I don't think is that any site I go to automatically deserves the same treatment. It's an assumption that by visiting that I am interested in a long term investment, whether it's via ad networks or subscription.

I don't think it's really a choice if all you know is Google. I'm not meaning to slight or promote Google or any other search engine here, but most consumers just know what's put in front of them, and that's why things like what the default search provider on a piece of software is tend to be really important. At this point, I wouldn't say Google is so much a choice as it is a brand name applied to the process, just like all adhesive bandages are Band-aids to most people.

It's likely an IP shuffle. The site just crawls the same way that the RIAA/MPAA has in the past; it's a non-serious project by some guys with a decent sense of humor. (Okay, it's not that good, but the point is they mean to be funny).

I would assume that this falls under FERPA/HIPPA regulations as well, and for those, it is on behalf of the user to be aware of potential breaches. Companies certainly can market towards consumers who work in fields that require specific privacy rules to be followed, but that is at the Companies' discretion.

Basically, unless you were sold the device being told specifically that it was safe for use in your line of work and PCI-DSS/HIPPA/FERPA/whatev, I doubt there is any grounds for complaint based on that.

Obligatory IANAL.

Pretty cool, but we need Needle Canon to remind it that we're in charge.

I'm as paranoid as the next guy, but be reasonable. Is it probable that the officer was there for a reason? Yes. But you really can't derive any satisfactory conclusion, or even a probable guess as to that officer's intentions or what they meant to convey with their appearance.

You're not thinking about maximizing profit here -- the Power Companies are looking to maximize profit and understand the hydra that is pirating -- for every site shut down, more pop up. That means more time spent by users searching, which means more power. It's a fucking racket, I tell ya.

I think planimal means to say "...should not be relevant", as far as legality is concerned. A small business or individual copyright owner should be no more catered to than a multi-billion dollar conglomerate. The law is not supposed to be just for those who can afford it.*

The problem here is that the RIAA seems to be of the opinion that they can just stamp their feet and scream until everyone listens and does what they want, which is not appropriate. All non-large business artists are much more directly impacted by piracy, but they thrive in the exact same environment without the advantages of billion dollar assets and investors. If "random sub-genre of sub-genre metal act" from Whocaresville, OH can eke out a living or even thrive in a pirate's Internet, RIAA backed productions can find a way. I really doubt that the RIAA would be on board if said band were to make the same request about the DMCA, nor would the RIAA throw its weight behind said band.

*Statement is made with a complete understanding that what should be and reality are vastly different things.

That's inappropriate hyperbole. It takes a click or two on non-trusted sites to configure, and that's about it for most NoScript users, and given that severe infections can necessitate a reinstall, the minor inconvenience far outweighs the potential risk.

I do find the comment on "broken mess" a bit funny, cause for a lot of sites, the ads that are getting blocked make it look like a mess anyways.

FTA:

It's just too much of a binary approach to the matter; either you accept being part of the network and are fine or you choose not to join and are hiding something. The fact is that there are grey areas on this matter; It's not often that there's something I don't want anyone to know, but there are thousands of things I don't want some people to know.

Likewise, I don't think it's entirely appropriate to have you automatically opted in. Suddenly, everyone is a part of a network whether they want to be or not, and that's really problematic when the general response to concerns over the privacy of social networks is "Don't join." What do you do when that's no longer an option?

To further this sentiment, I'd like to posit that Google needs to realize that they are treading into new territory as a technology leader, and that their actions will be the basis of how online interactions may be handled in the future. The reason that many feel the need to speak out now is because it's important for the public to note what it wants in software and the net. Granted, G+ is free and we can opt not to use it; but user feedback drives the development of thousands of pieces of software every day, free or paid. Why should G+ be any different?