If they collect data on it, then it could possibly be used to prove that the cameras don't deter crime. Then people might start to complain about pesky things like "civil liberties" and "privacy" and "freedom". If they don't collect the data at all, then detractors have no way to argue against it.

Most of the places that I've worked don't invest properly in a lab environment and so the only "learning lab" is the production systems. You really need something that you can break and leave broken for days, weeks, or even months. You need something that you control 100% and you aren't answerable to anyone else for its status. A home lab is very attractive in that respect.

It's cynicism borne of past experience. Governments are not trustworthy. They never have been and they never will. Constant vigilance against abuses is the only way to stop it. Public apathy is why we're where we are.

I know some journalists hate the Oxford Comma, but this is getting ridiculous,

It's actually a lot more insidious than that. According to the GOA:

Unless it existed before December 10, 1988, the plastic gun ban absolutely bans any gun that is not as detectable in a "walk-through metal detector" as a Security Exemplar (18 U.S.C. 922(p)(1)(A) and (6)).

The “Security Exemplar” is a piece of metal that the ATF uses to calibrate how much steel a manufacturer needs to put in the gun to make it beep in the metal detector. Other than the fact that it has to contain 3.7 ounces of steel and look sort of like a gun, anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder can determine, by regulatory fiat, the characteristics of the Exemplar.
He can determine whether you test guns with a "top flight" metal detector -- or a crummy one. He can determine how many times (or thousands of times) a gun has to pass in order not to be banned.

In addition, every "major component" of every firearm has to pass through an airport x-ray in such a way that its shape is "accurately" depicted (18 U.S.C. 922(p)(1)(B)).

The problem is that the language of the law is so amazingly vague that the BATFE could use it to outlaw just about any gun currently on the market if they so chose.

Then sue LG for invading your privacy.

Yeah, who doesn't want a check for $1.74 or $25 off your next purchase of an LG smart television?

That clam was asking for it.

Twitter is doing nothing of the sort. Not even by your fevered stretch of the imagination.

Really? You jump immediately to "sue them!"? Even the submitter calls it "libel" right out of the gate. What the hell is wrong with people anymore? Twitter is under no obligation to link you to anything at all. When sites like Twitter start getting sued every time there's a broken link (or a warning that a link may be to an infected site), they'll just stop parsing links altogether to avoid liability. Enjoy your cut-n-paste web browsing experience from then on.

Since it seems to meet the criteria of RCW 9A.52.110, I'd say every attempt to connect is a Class C Felony. However, at the very least, it's a misdemeanor.

RCW 9A.52.110
Computer trespass in the first degree.

(1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the first degree if the person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a computer system or electronic database of another; and

          (a) The access is made with the intent to commit another crime; or

          (b) The violation involves a computer or database maintained by a government agency.

          (2) Computer trespass in the first degree is a class C felony.

[1984 c 273 1.]

*****************

RCW 9A.52.120
Computer trespass in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the second degree if the person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a computer system or electronic database of another under circumstances not constituting the offense in the first degree.

          (2) Computer trespass in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.

[1984 c 273 2.]

******************

RCW 9A.52.120
Computer trespass in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of computer trespass in the second degree if the person, without authorization, intentionally gains access to a computer system or electronic database of another under circumstances not constituting the offense in the first degree.

          (2) Computer trespass in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor.

[1984 c 273 2.]

At the very least, Experian's board should be held accountable by its shareholders for gross negligence in failing to do its due diligence during the purchase.

9/11 changed the stakes dramatically. Prior to 9/11, hijackings almost universally meant "fly this plane to Havana and we'll let you all go". As soon as the hijackers upped the ante to "we're gonna plow this thing into the nearest building, killing all of you", they forever ensured that no box cutter would stop the passengers from beating them into a paste.

...says the Anonymous Coward...

I would like our current laws to be enforced. If the NSA is violating the law, those responsible should be prosecuted. If they aren't enforced, then there is literally no point in creating new laws.

A law to stop the NSA? Yeah, that oughta do the trick. *rolls eyes*