This gets trotted out, but it isn't the reason. Small and stores lots of data is GOOD.

Here's the problems with thumb drives. This is why they can't be trusted:

1)- NO READ-ONLY MODE
Unlike CDs, which are read only without giant hoops to jump through, there's no write-protect switch for thumb drives, or ability to trivially make them read-only.

2)- USB drive, or viral keyboard?
Nothing inside a USB drive can make sure it's actually a damned USB drive. An infected CD won't run without autorun, but an infected USB stick could reasonably and actually become a keyboard and launch a binary itself by TYPING IN ITS OWN COMMANDS (this can really happen, easily). Since the U in USB is universal, and there's no reasonable way to force it to behave as a passive drive in a physically inspectable manner, it can't be trusted.

3)- Terrible OS design (mostly gone)
For whatever reason, most OSes properly treat removable media as removable, but often have a soft spot in their hearts for USB sticks. This is mostly fixed by now, but was absolutely an issue for years and until the older conception is gone, who knows.

tl;dr: Thumb drives being small and holding a lot isn't the issue, the idea of them secretly being generic USB devices (aka, absolutely anything) that are generally auto-trusted and can reasonably press OK to their own confirmation dialogs is, as is their entire lack of hardware accountability. Unlike a floppy or a CD, a USB stick can always be written to and can actually be any goddamned thing at all.

Computer Science is still a newbie discipline. Much more relevantly, the problems introduced by the sudden social change of what a network is are a pretty big deal.

Here's how you know it's crazy: look at the hacker hysteria, and how it has barely gotten any better. The vast majority of "hackers" who cracked stuff back in the day were treated entirely ludicrously, like some kind of wizard. Everyone here probably remembers indefinite detention and ludicrous punishments such as "can't use a computer", which would be absolutely unthinkable for even a bank robber who had served his time.

If you piped your water supply through every enemy state in the world, you would probably want to inspect it before handing it out as drinkable. But, if you did not do that inspection, would you complain about the pipe manufacturers, for not making a pipe no one could interact with? Like, "why isn't this pipe adamantium"? And would you ignore all the enemy nations and go throw in jail the guy who put green food coloring in to show that an actual bad guy could have done something much worse?

The other big thing is how fast expectations change. Every few years someone has rigged up a specialized framework that solves some set of "needed for profit" set of network issues, and then the advantages of that force migration towards it. While in theory each of these individual solutions could be highly secure, the fact that they are new features hurts that a whole lot.

As people decide on a feature set that they actually need for certain purposes, and finally discard the idea that something is bad because it is old, we will start to see really solid code that is trusted. In MANY places, we already HAVE this.

More importantly, in disciplines whose lengths of existence rounds to millenia instead of decades (network security) or a century (computer science), you have things that "everyone knows", and those things have been true for generations. Meanwhile, in computer science, you see holy wars wrapped in holy wars, and a lot of it is due to communication issues.

"Care to point to the source"

Haha is this wikipedia? I'm telling you things you can google, not applying for a job as your bitch.

You know that statement about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary proof?
Well, ordinary claims just need you to use a search engine, or even just start on wikipedia. You don't get to play skeptic with life, assuming that before you change your precious worldview something has to be tied up and cited. You have the power to google it your goddamned self.

But, fuck it. I'm on vacation.

You can find a TON of first hand accounts of crazy fucking bullshit in North Korea. Here's some who talk on social media after having been there as a tourist:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...

Here's one on social media who mentions having taught there, and brings up the "repelled incursions" I referred to, in addition to crazier shit involving netting on cars:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...

Also you can find firsthand accounts all over, not only from social media:
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c...
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/c... ..but from other media as well
http://www.cracked.com/article...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
http://www.dailylife.com.au/li...

Essentially ALL of these mention that the internet is pretty well shut down and only the North Korean fake version is available- in Pyongyang. You know, their BIG CITY.

Here's a wikipedia link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Some quotes:
"As of late 2014 there are 1,024 IP addresses in the country."
"Despite the incident, many citizens of North Korea may be oblivious to the existence of the internet."

http://qz.com/315969/in-north-...
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/2...

"Nearly all of the country's Internet traffic is routed through China. Firms that monitor that traffic say it is comparable to only about 1,000 high-speed homes in the United States."

I'd like to repeat my earlier point, however:
You don't need to source a claim to be correct. The world isn't wikipedia.

He acts as if the common North Korean citizen is permitted knowledge of the internet, instead of just advanced CS students who have proven themselves indoctrinated sufficiently.

It's so easy to underestimate what such a government can do with such an ancient moral code and modern access to propaganda. The North Korean people aren't like "put yourself in their position". They have been systematically denied knowledge and education that would permit them to ask "Why don't we have the freedom to access the internet". They don't understand "freedom", they don't know that there is an "internet", and in many cases their definition of "we" will be substantially alien as well. Education is huge, and they have plenty over there- just of the wrong kind.

Protip: The North Korean media reports on US troops attacking North Korean soil and being repelled. The overwhelming majority of North Koreans believe that not only is the US at war with North Korea, but that North Korea is winning a defensive war lasting decades. That's the literal truth. That's how successful the Juche zealots have been. Internet access? Goodness, lol.

Seriously, holy shit. I mean, lets science.

Facts: Suddenly, everyone is fat.
Conclusion: Everyone must be a lazy pussy suddenly.

How on earth do otherwise reasonable people do this?

Is that what you think is going on? Everyone just wants to "scarf junk food with no consequences"?

You think the obesity epidemic is a fucking character flaw?

Dude, if you lost weight over the LAST six months, then let me tell you, you haven't "kept it off". You're posting as AC so there's no way to check back on you in two years. "Kept it off" is five years. Six months is just willpower and starvation for most.

I think there's enough Japan for blue lights AND humanoid robots...

...well, maybe I just hope that....

Because I use my mouse to close adverts, are mouse manufacturers vulnerable?

From a free speech perspective, this is an idiot joke- obviously the guy should be able to publish an add blocker.
From a property ownership perspective, this is an idiot joke- obviously, the property owner (me) should be able to control what my property fucking DOES, and what it doesn't do is show me dumb adverts.
From a moral perspective, this is an idiot joke- advertisements are objectively harmful to the recipients, and those who do not wish to be subject to harm should not be.

So if this DOES go through, what it means is that ad blocking software will be moved to places where these guys have no jurisdiction. Note that it's happening in France by French companies, so they are hoping for a home team advantage. But hopefully their courts aren't fans of idiot jokes.

Moridineas: "I'm a big support of Snowden. Much less so of Manning. This guy deserves whatever he gets."

I think this is the big telling point. Snowden is very controversial. Manning, the controversy is mostly about the magnitude of the punishment. But no one is seriously in favor of people just handing out secrets to foreign governments. Wherever you stand on the Snowdometer, this is just not that.

Most people with a clearance do NOT have a "number they would sell out for". That's the whole fucking point of that thing.

If you don't have a clearance, you can't be "entrapped" by this, so worry not your pretty little head.

This is a bad seed getting weeded, nothing more.

I've used gmail since it was a baby, but at least I always used redirected emails that point there. So I can, in theory, switch out. I wonder if they'll drop POP support before lowering the boom? I have so very much data in there.

I know they hinted at it being some far future change, but just being willing to say it at all is nuts. Gmail is a smashing success, that they would want to redefine email based on some user interface study is scary as shit.

25% of people having an irrational belief is absolutely fine. That's far away from a plurality or majority.

77% of Americans believe there's evidence for aliens, and while that's a sketchy study, it's a huge number.

If the encryption is real (aka, a third party isn't holding the key,or a copy of YOUR key), then they may as well deliver the order to a donkey.

So there's no threat about Apple and Google "deliberately creating encryption that they themselves cannot break", because that just means they can't help the government when they ask, much as, for instance, my dog could not help them out.

But there's a lot wrong with that sentence. They aren't creating encryption, they are writing crypto code using existing crypto algos- arguably the same thing, but still. Also, YOU, the user, will be the one encrypting it, much like you can't sue a knife manufacturer for making a sharp knife. And encryption that is "breakable" isn't really encryption by any decent standard.

The real concern isn't some ancient law trying to force the hand of companies- this will only force them further along the path of making sure that it's not THEIR data, because they lack keys, it's the USER data, go bug him. That's the logical place for them to be anyway- no one spends hundreds of dollars for a phone and then encrypts it without expecting that the encryption is actually a thing- while it's wise to supposed that government level attackers have ways to get keys, it is obviously NOT WHAT YOU WANT WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT. I mean, so there's that.

Anyway, the real concern will be NEW laws that force the companies to do this. And they wouldn't have to be federal laws- if California made some law about how you can't blah blah offer real encryption unless X, and Washington was like no real encryption unless Y, and New York was like no real encryption unless Z, then you would be pushing the companies out of too many markets, and then all the federal courts have to do is drag their feet and the feds get another full decade of Total Access To Your Own Papers And Possessions.