What the US Marshalls are doing is illegal. As head of the executive branch, the president not only has the power to tell them to stop, he has the obligation to do so.

Seriously?

The President - any President - has an obligation to order subordinates (like the US Marshals) to stop acting illegally? Conversely, can the President order subordinates to act illegally?

The office of the President is not a law enforcement position...

You realize that the President heads up exactly ONE of the three co-equal branches of the US Gov't, right?

Obama, in almost every area you mentioned, expanded the activities you want to toss back on Bush.

Where Bush sunset the Patriot Act, Obama renewed it.

Warrantless wire taps were just expanded under Obama in the last week or so.

Etc.

When you take a bad idea from a previous administration and renew/expand it, in some small way it becomes your program too. Unless, apparently, you are a Democrat.

If they are selling items, doesn't that make them "released"?

You do realize Microsoft produces software for the Macintosh, right?

Bookstores and coffee shops seem to have an insatiable need for highly-educated clerks...

Too bad Starbucks Barrista and Barnes & Nobel sales clerk positions aren't'tenure-track'...

Read the article - AT&T alerted him to the costs immediately, offered to sign him up in a low-cost plan, and after he chose not to sign-up for an international data plan capped him at $750 and then STILL allowed him to sign up for a low-cost international data plan to lower his bill by $720.

Hard to see what more AT&T could have done to help him...

Did you read the article?

He knew he didn't have an international data prison, so he turned data roaming off before crossing the border.

As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to sign up for an international data plan via text message, he choose not to.

AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada, again, via text message.

When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M * $15.36/meg he was warned of when he entered Canada).

What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?

International Data plan, not domestic.

You realize it's another country, right?

In the US cell companies have peering agreements, but the tarrif/tax structure prevents that for cross-border peering agreements.

AT&T warned him of the rate ($15.36/meg), advised him to sign up for an international data plan, and stopped his service when the charge got excessive ($750), and when contacted put him in a lower-cost international data plan that cost him a fraction of the charges he chose to run up after not choosing an international data plan.

What more could AT&T have done for him?

(BTW, he can't plead ignorance - he turned off data before he crossed the border because he knew he didn't have an international data plan and he wanted to avoid the charges.)

So the selfish cellphone company you worked for helped people sign-up for lower-cost data plans AFTER they ran up crazy bills...

Those bastards!

As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to sign up for an international data plan (via text), he choose not to.

AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada (via text).

When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M * $15.36/meg he was warned of when he entered Canada).

When AT&T detected his decision to not enroll was going to result in a very large bill ($750) they cut off data service until he took steps to choose an international data plan.

What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?

What is the story here?

He knew his data plan was US-only, that's why he turned off data when he crossed the border.

As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to sign up for international data plan, he choose not to.

AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada.

When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M (the estimated usage of the one google map search he *chose* to use after turning data back on in Canada) * $15.36/meg rate he was warned of when he entered Canada).

What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?

At what point do his decisions to:
- live near the border
- purchase a US-only data plan
- not sign-up for an international data plan when offered

Become the fault of AT&T?

Did you read the article?

As soon as he crossed the border, AT&T offered him a chance to dig up for international data plan, he choose not to.

AT&T warned him of the international data rate ($15.36/meg) as soon as they knew he was in Canada.

When asked, AT&T offered him the chance to retroactively enroll in an international data plan to cover his usage ($30, or slightly more than the 1.5M * $15.36/meg he was warned of when he entered Canada).

What more could AT&T have reasonably done? Signed him up for an international data plan without his permission?