Does a "dumb phone" exist? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call them weak computing devices with few _user_ accessible features?

the only person who would see it immediately would be perhaps NSA employees entering and egressing

You seem to have forgotten that as modern Americans we have:

1) Cameras.
2) The ability to transmit photos worldwide.
3) Access to the work of reporters who can add textual context to those photos.

Even if the protest was seen by 50k people, what actually matters, is if it gets play on the internet, news papers, and/or television.

When is that brain cancer you have finally going to impede your ability to type? Not soon enough.

You are one of the people who comes to mind when I think of this quote: "I've never killed a man, but I've read many an obituary with great satisfaction."

That was beautifully written. Replying so I can find it in the future more easily.

For that to happen, Obama would have to be involved.

Politicians are slimy evil scum, but they aren't stupid. They saw what happened to Nixon, so now they do all the same stuff he did, just through levels of insulation. GOP and DNC alike -- fetid pukes the lot of them.

Why do you own a smartphone that doesn't have an internet connection? You might as well just get a landline.

Just how broad is the radius of this location? If a person living in New York City buys something online from a store in Seattle while he and his phone are in NY, where does the credit card transaction occur? If the answer is Seattle, the definition of what is a reasonable proximity between transaction and phone has to be quite loose, otherwise a lot of legit transactions will be botched. I don't actually know anything about CC processing however, so I would be interested in hearing from people who do.

Isn't sort of insane to cross a border with one's primary phone? I have my old retired android phone which I "fillup" with a prepaid card (and absolutely nothing else on it all), for crossing the border. I'm surprised more people don't do this.

point well taken

Not to mention the fact that the Government is free to jail or kill you whenever it wants based on what you think and say.

Because I'm not a common carrier.

Here's the deal as referenced in the article I linked to above:

1) Claim common carrier status (this puts them under title II and they would have to lease out the lines they install to competitors) as a prerequisite for
2) getting access to public rights of way, and then once built,
3) Claim they are not common carriers and thus not subject to title II.

It's a scam on the public.

Because I can't afford tunnels, poles, and 10 million acres.

Compared to tunnels, poles, and especially land, yeah, those things cost absolutely nothing.

Secondly, as to your first point, see this link: http://www.theverge.com/2014/5...

It explains how these companies claim to be common carriers to get access to those rights of way ... until they start providing services and then they claim they aren't.

This allows them to not pay for right of way access, for building tunnels, installing poles, etc. etc. It's a "socialize expenses, privatize profits" thing -- essentially leveraging the worst parts of socialism to further the worst parts of capitalism.

I'm SOOO glad that AT&T operates room 641A and not the city of San Francisco. That makes it all so much better. Plus it costs more! Another bonus (for somebody).