But, how does it do that. The article and even the Safeplug website do not explain the mechanism it uses to redirect your traffic to Tor. There aren't even any pictures of the back off the device that I can find.

Does it sit between your gateway and your router, and transparently redirect all packets to the tor network?

Do you just plug it into a router port and point your devices at it as a proxy?

Where is the source code? If we're going to be paranoid enough to use Tor for everything, shouldn't we demand to audit the code for security holes and possible backdoors?

It just seems like a product without a niche. Most users have no desire to use Tor, and those that do are typically savvy enough to set it up themselves.

With regards to #2, the 2008 FISA amendment explicitly indemnified telecoms for cooperating with law enforcement. There's no backroom dealing going on. It's all there in black and white.

That pole is on the public right-of-way, not your property. And your municipality is paid for the wires on it. It's called a franchise fee.

The transmitters aren't owned by the cable companies, and transmit power has nothing to do with how the cable networks operate. The rebroadcasters simply don't see a return on upping the transmit power.

There is a reason mini-USB has been depreciated for micro-USB, and it directly relates to you never having a mini-USB cable fail. The retaining clips on mini-USB are on the connector, when they fail you must repair the device. With micro-USB you just replace the cable. Also, a properly designed micro-USB cable fails before the connector does.

My three year old has picked up and walked off with one of my five current micro-USB devices at least once (probably a dozen times with the tablet) while they were still plugged in. I do have a healthy supply of partially functioning cables, but I've never had to repair a port.

As long as we're being pedantic...

Papyrus isn't paper, it's papyrus. The first paper was made in China around 100 BCE, and was made from hemp.

I knew that was coming. :-)

This is not a copyright case, and copyright wouldn't prevent me from handing my mail to my assistant and saying, "Open these, read them, throw away the ones I don't want, stack them in order of importance, and if you can think of anything I might want based on these letters let me know."

My apologies, I used consent instead of two-party consent.

And, I'll retract my comment that must jurisdictions (US) require it. Turns out only 12 states do (honestly, a little shocked by that fact).

California's law prohibits "intercepting and recording" without all-party consent. Now, clearly no intercepting is going on. A Google mailbox is the desired endpoint.

Recording is a little less clear cut. E-mails must be recorded by definition. I argue that, since Google is using the "original" copy stored in my mailbox, no additional recording is going on either.

However, none of this addresses my point that once an e-mail is in my mailbox (just like a physical letter) it is mine, and I am free to do as I please with it.

That's a terrible analogy. First, it's not common practice to record and retain phone calls for future reference (creating a reasonable expectation that the recording doesn't exist in the first place). Second, it is explicitly illegal to record phone calls without consent in most (all?) jurisdictions. Third, just who does an email belong to once it has been delivered? (I feel this may be the most important question posed by this case) I'll certainly argue that once it hits my mailbox, it's mine. So, I would clearly be within my rights to allow Google to read it.

Have you read the proposed law? It only requires removal (which the law defines as no longer transmitting, not deletion) of content posted by the minor making the request. So, if your "friend" posts a picture of you doing something questionable and tags you, it stays up. I admit, I've never tried to remove a post from five years ago, but that doesn't seem like a major technical hurdle to overcome.

I'm a US citizen, but living in Washington, I'm not bound by Californian laws.

I'm pretty sure they already let you delete posts.

While the design is constrained there really is no restriction on the input methods. The surface pro has full sized USB ports and is running Windows 8. It will recognize any USB keyboard or mouse you plug into it. Or any other USB accessory you plug in (provided it has Windows 8 drivers). There is no one app per screen restriction on the pro either. It has desktop mode just like any Windows 8 machine. Meanwhile, show me a laptop with a touchscreen, pen input, and the ability to just take the damn keyboard off if I don't want to lug it around. I'm not certain about the secure boot settings on the pro, but I'm pretty sure they're unlocked. So, it will even run Linux if you want. Good luck getting either of the digitizers to work though.

I don't know about you, but my mid-size tower would look a little funny hanging on the wall next to my flat screen. Sure, I could buy a 30' hdmi cable, but I've yet to find a decent wireless keyboard and mouse that works from more than 15' away and doesn't cost $100.

It makes them no worse than cable, and about $50 cheaper where I am.

Personal information from financial institutions? They had that decades ago.