Why would they have the right to "preferential treatment" compared to, say, the parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook?

That perpetrator was not considered "terrorist". Yet his victims were children (who did nothing to him), while this Jordanian pilot was a fighter himself, who knowingly and willingly put himself in harms way.

With click-through rates in the ppm range nowadays, that's probably not worth the effort.

Lots of advertising on the Internet is probably going back to basics: designed as non-interactive, like in newspapers or magazines, just making sure people see a brand name again and again and that way when they are in a shop making a decision to buy a phone, they go for the brand that they know so well from the advertising.

Define "commercial".

I have a web site that I pay for and maintain myself. It's a purely commercial web site, yet it's free and there are no ads: this as it's the front of my company. It's advertising my tour business, and is visited by people that are interested in my tours, and allows them to book tickets to tours. I also add general information on hiking in Hong Kong, which people may use to set out by themselves. It's set up for purely commercial reasons, and I think such commercial sites are by and large a great addition to the Internet. I'm using such sites myself: to find information on products, to order stuff from. The Internet would lose a lot of its value if such commercial sites would all disappear and we would have to resort to calling companies, visiting their shops (which may be the other side of the world) to get a catalogue, etc.

For my business it is a great help to have this site, I sell a lot through it. It makes the whole ticket sales easier as well (very little manual interaction from my side needed). I wouldn't want to do without - people can't find me nor can they easily get the information about my tours that they need to make a decision on whether to join, ticket sales would become cumbersome; basically I'd have to close this part of my business.

What would be great if lots of this "targeted advertising" and collection of personal information goes. So I'm still running AdBlock Plus and Flashblock, and recently installed Self Destruct Cookies - an add-on that destroys cookies moments after you leave the site. Sure you have to re-login all the time, which LastPass makes dead easy, it does take care of most of the tracking across sites by outfits like Google and Facebook. This is just one aspect of the commercialisation of the Internet, something that my commercial use of the network can perfectly do without. I'm even collecting only the most basic information of my clients: name (I don't care if it's their real name - they just have to give me that name when they show up at the start), telephone and e-mail. All I need to be able to contact them, and for them to claim their place on the tour.

I'd call that an advantage.

At the moment, the governments of various countries (the UK and the US most notably, but there are more) can take away many civil liberties and civil rights from people just by labelling them "terror suspect". No actual evidence is needed, just a suspicion. This can block you from flying, for example. They can throw you in jail, possibly for years without charge (see Guantanamo Bay for example). Can't do that with even rape or murder suspects: you can't keep them in jail indefinitely without charge and without trial. You're possibly better off suspected being the director of a snuff movie which shows how to prepare and cook a human child, than you are after talking to your long lost uncle who happened to have made a small donation to a Muslim organisation which is affiliated to a mosque which is attended by a suspected Al Quaeda sympathiser.

Terrorists should be dealt with the same way other criminals are dealt with. They're criminals, plain and simple. They may do it for political, ideological or even religious reasons - they're still criminals: murderers, extortionists, computer hackers, whatever. That are the more appropriate labels.

Encrypted e-mail is to this day not straightforward, if possible at all. I just checked my e-mail client, Claws Mail. It doesn't have an option to encrypt e-mail. Maybe in an extension; it's not in the client itself. Using encryption securely is hard, really hard. So many ways it can go wrong, so easy to make a mistake and compromise your key making the whole thing moot.

Furthermore, I don't know of any current standard for e-mail encryption that is widely supported. No idea on how to create a key - let alone how to securely and easily exchange keys with random recipients (like a client who calls me asking me to send them some information by e-mail).

Now imagine e-mail encryption is commonplace. The obvious way to send an encrypted mail to someone would be to pull their public key from some kind of repository (which as yet doesn't exist but let's just imagine it does and that every e-mail address that's in use has a key pair) - the one that belongs to their e-mail address - the e-mail address you're going to send the information to - and which may be someone else's entirely as I wrote it down incorrectly. So while anyone in transit can not read it, the recipient of the e-mail will have the private key (after all, it's the public key that belongs to that e-mail address). So this doesn't solve the problem at hand!

I won't say e-mail encryption is useless, it does help snooping on the way, but it is also definitely not the one all end all.

The problem is that it's often really hard to distinguish between the two for those who are not deeply involved in the field.

When you eat properly, there is no need for any vitamin supplement, period. You can get all vitamins and minerals and whatnot from your food - people have done just that for thousands upon thousands of years. There's no reason why we suddenly can't do that any more.

Food science is just crazy. Too much pseudo-science. All those fancy diets, not mixing carbs, fats and proteins in one meal, the current superfoods ("it's all you need!") - it just doesn't make sense.

I've never limited the amount of food I take, though I generally try to go for natural and avoid processed food. I cook my own dinners at home (most days), and make sure there's vegetable included as well. Snacks are often fruit (fresh or dried), rather than crisps or biscuits. Another thing is that I try to keep my diet varied, eating many different things. All this should ensure I get all I need, in sufficient quantities, and in the meantime I can really enjoy what I'm eating. It seems to work really well, without much thought (or worries) about it I do keep myself in shape. I've lost quite some of my waistline over the past year, in part due to my current job as tourist guide which means I'm walking a lot - easily 8 hours a day on my feet, for several days a week.

The problem for most people nowadays is most likely 1) lack of movement, and 2) lots of processed foods (high nutrient density - doesn't make you feel full nearly as fast as natural food does).

Many people nowadays sit in their office all day, then sit in the car going home, pass by a drive-through restaurant to pick up junk food and sit in the car eating it (this part for the Americans typically), and sit on the couch most of the evening watching TV before going to bed. No walking. Not even the walk to the train station, no sports, no physical exertion ever. That's asking for problems. People are designed to be active, to walk around all day, construct things with their hands. We're designed to handle natural food sources which by nature are unprocessed and very varied: there's simply a lot of edible things around in this world.

This is why I got to my rather simple philosophy of remaining active, eating varied, and basically eating as much as you like when it comes to unprocessed foods.

In that case, they would be allowed to block any robocalls originating from their network (because those customers are violating their contract); not the ones entering their network. That'd be a legal quagmire: how do they know for sure it's a robocall until it's answered and listened in to? They're not legally allowed to listen in to calls, a warrant is needed for that.

NSA et.al. work in secret, outside the law. Formally they're covered by the law, but the problem is that this includes many secret laws giving them lots of leeway, and if the law gets in the way they'll ignore it anyway.

The FCC and phone companies however work more in the open, and are bound by the law. One such laws says that the phone company must do their best to make all phone calls come through, no matter the content. This is typical part of being a common carrier (like the postal service): they can not discriminate against content, they have to put through the message, and also are not liable for any content of the message.

While technically easy, it's legally not so. The phone company must put through those calls, even if they know this are robocalls and the customer doesn't like robocalls. The customer however is free to install blockers on their phone, or to have their calls rerouted through a third party which helps them filtering the calls. This is exactly how it's done now.

Finally, you should really equate this with Internet filters. They're hated here - yet phone filters are asked for. Phone filters can also be used to block political rivals and let your own calls go through, for example. That will give your party an edge at the next elections.

Who's ever going to listen to voice mail, knowing that the ten voice mail messages the system has waiting for you are recordings of a robocall, because thanks to the white list all robocalls are automatically sent to voicemail?

Technically, I'm sure is totally doable. Myself I have an app called "SudioKuma Call Filter" installed, this is a blacklist for Hong Kong local junk calls. Also I am on a government do-not-call list, which blocks robocalls, but allows calls made by humans - the call filter takes care of that one. They have a blacklist of some 20k numbers, and a whitelist of some 162k numbers, so far less than what this company is dealing with. The size of that blacklist (TFA mentions 850,000 numbers, and hundreds of changes a day) may be an issue for a regular phone, particularly the database lookups may be too slow for it to work well.

More of an issue is that most land line phones (at least the ones that I used when I still had a land line, this may have changed) do not have any significant computing power in them. They may have a small memory for some fast calls or a simple address book; nothing near the computing power of a mobile phone - which is comparable to that of desktop computers less than a decade older.

No need for that. They only have to get a warrant if they want to use the evidence in a court of law - most intelligence gathered by the secret services (which is what this is about, not about police investigations) never makes it to the court, and is not even intended for that purpose. Only when they want to actually go and catch someone they start to play by the books - that moment it's getting simple as they know everything already, just have to redo bits of their work the proper way.

Wrong translation. It's much simpler.

"Allow us to break encryption, or we go back to the methods we've been using for decades, if not centuries!" Because that's exactly what they say they have to "start using": methods that have been used for a very long time. Methods that overall worked quite well.

One serious issue with that one - the same issue with WhatsApp:

It's free forever. No ads, no subscription fees.

Now how're they going to pay their developers, their (cloud) servers, etc? These apps don't come into existence by themselves. They don't maintain themselves. Those servers also cost real money to run and maintain. Doesn't sound sustainable to me.

WhatsApp was supposed to be free for a year, after which you were to start paying a small yearly fee. Apparently even that part they dropped, as I'm using it for well over a year and have never had to pay anything. Now how WhatsApp is paying for the service they provide me I don't know - they don't sell ads on the platform, and they claim at least they don't sell my personal information (message content, whatever) to third parties.