Government cannot compel a particular response without a warrant or court order: Google is not obligated to respond to the a request that is not accompanied by a warrant or court order in any particular way. Google may CHOOSE to comply with a request because there is nothing inappropriate about a business deciding to comply with a lawful request from a government agency.

If I had the mod points, I'd mod you up. This is an important distinction.

My guess is that Google wants to keep the feds on their good side. Google is getting rather large and wants to make sure that the Feds remember that Google helps them "catch terrorists". Unlike the populous, the federal government has long memories and can hold grudges for long periods of time.

Fortunately, if you don't like Google's policy, you can choose not to use it.

This is easier said than done. Google, like Facebook, has become tightly integrated with our society, so much so that it's weird when I see product placements for other search engines on shows and movies. I can't remember the show but I remember seeing a product placement for Yahoo search. I remember saying out loud, "Who still uses Yahoo?"

I would say it's easier to simply not register an account on Google. However, they may still know who you are based on your browser fingerprint.

There is a difference between military operations, where the mission is directly against a citizen of the state and within the confines of its borders, and military training. I believe the parent author is referring to the latter.

Interestingly, the Posse Comitatus Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act) only covers the Army and Air Force. So the Marine UAV bases could still be used against state citizens.

Just to clear the air, entrapment is when the police cause a person to do something illegal when that person had no intention of doing so in the first place.

Example: I'm walking down the street and an UC tells me that I need to buy drugs so that I can save the life of his grandmother. If I buy the drugs, I can say entrapment because my concern was for his grandmother (real or not) and not for the drugs (as I have no history with it.)

If some junkie strolls down Drug Dealer Blvd. looking for a score and happens to buy from a UC, that's not entrapment since they were out to buy drugs in the first place.

The key to this is would the person committed the crime if the police were not there to begin with.

ICANN should probably just create this TLD and then use it the same way they use example.com.

So many shows and movies have used .web as fake URLs so that they don't have the same problem they did with phone numbers.

Futurama notoriously used .web and I, for one, give all power to the hypnotoad.

I personally want to have the ability to read any bill that has been introduced. THOMAS is a good system, but horribly outdated. It could be made so much better. But we make do with what we have.

Improvements to the system should be that the database is updated in real-time, or at least as close to real-time as possible. There is no reason why this shouldn't be possible.

My guess, however, is that reps want not to be able to be accountable for their votes. Not many representatives have easy access to their voting record on their official web site. I know my old rep did (Frank Wolf) but my current (Jim Moran) does not. While the information can be found on THOMAS, it adds an additional step.

I know a few months ago, DC Counsel put an unpopular bill available online for comment. It was passed and when it finally it the news, there was outcry. The counsel said, "But you had a chance to comment." The problem was that they hid the bill on their website in a rarely browsed section, obfuscated, and ultimately in a place where no one would think to look. Stepping aside the fact that the news should have picked this up before it was voted on, the fact is that the DC Counsel followed the letter of the law, but not the spirit.

Every politician must be not be trusted, even if they are from "your party" or even if you voted for the guy. The framers had this in mind when writing the Constitution.

The thing that saddens me is that the original intentions of the Founding Fathers has long since gone: a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. I don't see this changing anytime soon.

I'm not sure if you're serious or trolling. In case you're serious:

Saying QR code is "a little more than an advanced barcode" is like saying a computer is like an advanced calculator. While technically true, the fact that QR codes can hold MUCH more data makes the comparison moot. While the barcode and QR code are related, they have different applications.

Someone please mod this as +1 Informative.

The key here is that no one can claim copyright to work done by the US Government. This does not mean that it is accessible to the public.

I have worked for a non-profit before. And I've had to issue DMCA noticed before. Not in the same job, mind you.

Speaking from the DMCA side, I always contacted the offending author first. I know most people just make mistakes and don't intend on copying something out of spite. The less "legal" action I take, the better it is. So in that light, Jay could have just send her an e-mail. But the DMCA does give him the right to just start the legal process right away.

I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that Jay has had a large number of copyright violators. I know I have and find it harder and harder to write to each individual person and say that they are copying my work. It's much easier to just submit a form to X company and have them deal with it. And I'm guessing this is why Jay just submitted the form.

From the non-profit side of things, I had to make every penny count. I could NOT afford risk. I would think that this lawyer, assuming she was indeed an angel sent from heaven to do the Lord's work, would not want to risk thousands of dollars in fines simply because she was too lazy. The fact that she was a lawyer makes this even worse. If the site had been "Help little Timmy get the life-saving surgery he needs", I'm sure it would have been a bit different. But an attorney running a website advertising services should have known better. If she wasn't up-to-speed on DMCA, she should have consulted an IP attorney, or at the very least, a techie.

Your sarcasm aside, the parent post is saying that times were different when the law was written. The Supreme Court, for the most part, have adapted the Constitutional meaning of the First Amendment to the times.

I agree with the Parent that Martin Luther King would not be as effective today hiding behind a pseudonym and a faceless blog as he was when he took the National Mall. This is not to say that anonymous messages don't have their place. Often anonymous commentators will offer ideas to the marketplace, which then spawn more ideas and contribute to the free speech of all people.

While I agree with the premise of the assemblyman (the premise being that bullies shouldn't get to hide behind the First Amendment), using a nuke to trim a tree is not the way to go.

My only problem with this is what makes it into a scientific journal? Since it's public, I would want as many studies included, but this may include junk science. But having a lower bar of entry could also be used for controversial subjects.

As rigorous as scientific method is, the definition of science has become fodder for political debate. (I initially had examples of good and bad science, but it seems that each person has their own idea of what they mean.) Whether this fodder will benefit humanity long term or even the country short term has yet to be determined. Perhaps ironically, science, like art, must push the boundaries of our own preconceptions and be willing to be bold, even when society does not wish it. Embryonic stem cell research comes to mind as a clear example between science and society (no "religious" war intended; just citing an example).

I'm hesitant of a government-backed publisher simply because science would then be defined by who is in office. Even if this was done by non-partisan people, politicians can still "withhold funding" until they get the results they want.

I think forcing studies that were paid for by taxpayers to be open is a great and important start. That way, any study, regardless of outcome, will have to be published and available for all taxpayers. To make it fully accountable, there would need to be a list of studies being conducted so that some senator/representative can't bury the results because it gets in the way of their political ideology. For added paranoia, several independent servers can archive the list and make sure every study conducted is published. For ultimate paranoia, provide a way to contact whomever is conducting the study.

While I love the great outdoors, my back has precluded this activity for me. So now, I "don't do computers" at home. DVR and phone is the maximum of what I'll do.

It usually while I'm mopping the floor or washing the dishes that I'll think of a solution to a problem I'm having. Maybe not so much of a solution as a different way to approach the problem. (e.g. iterating through a users list to find which of them belong to a group because I can't query the group.)

Does Apple monitor questions asked to Siri? Or were they browsing twitter and noticed a bunch of people pointing this out?

I'd be interested to see how they found out that Siri was doing this.

Many large corporations have moved from Customer Service to Customer Relations. The difference is that corporations are no longer interested in keeping customers happy. They only need customers to keep paying.

Verizon has a very large customer base. As long as they don't do something drastic, the majority of their customers will continue paying. They may have crappy customer service, but as long as people don't have problems, they will continue to pay.

I have no figures on the subject but I suspect that those with unlimited data plans may represent a smaller portion of their customer base...or at least a smaller profitable portion of their customer base. They may lose customers because of this, but they may be hedging that new customers may come to Verizon for it's coverage/speed/etc.

I set up a ustream account for my dog. The baby, like my dog, can't interact with the audience.

This set up would be a lot simpler since it would just involve a webcam you can buy for $20 and run the usb cable to some laptop.