The insidious implication of this ruling is that there is likely to be evidence in someone's Facebook or email. that pertains to a sexual harassment case, sight unseen.
You didn't read the article did you? Sight unseen? Of course it is sight unseen.. That's why the judge wants to see it - not to pass judgement on the case but to determine if there is anything there that will support the defense - as the defense alleges there is. If the judge finds that whatever is there is irrelevant then the defense cannot get access to it. If the plaintiff wants to avoid this then she can drop her complaint.
A web-based application works in Firefox, Safari, IE, Chrome, etc., on desktops, laptops, net-books, Linux boxes, etc.
Not automatically they don't. A UI for a desktop doesn't work so well in Mobile especially over 3g cellular. There are all kinds of browser incompatibilities still. HTML5 is still not finished and support on the desktop is far behind the mobile browsers. Got plug-ins? Web-based applications have issues even when the OS is the same because the browsers may be different. This can all be overcome, but so can the issues with native clients. It's always a trade off.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.