This doesn't explain why they wouldn't simply announce the surveillance, rather than "fake leaking" it. Consider me unconvinced.

As Bowden goes on to point out, if you aren't a US citizen, you have no protection whatsoever from PRISM.

Um, and if I'm a citizen, I'm protected from prism? Nuh uh.

I don't understand the point you (or Naomi Wolf) is trying to make. In the article you point to, she says

It is actually in the Police Stateâ(TM)s interest to let everyone know that everything you write or say everywhere is being surveilled.

How so? She doesn't spell this out, and I didn't get it from what you wrote either. Why would it be in the police state's best interest to have their activities known? And if it is in their best interest, why would they go to the trouble of having Snowden disclose it in the style he has, rather than simply announcing it?

Of course laws are sometimes arbitrary. Of course staring at your car stereo is just as dangerous as staring at your phone. Do you think these are revelations to anyone?

Yes, I do.

If I was a police officer, I would charge you with not being in full control of your vehicle by virtue that your attention is divided between the traffic and your piece of wood.

What if I can produce video of the event in which I can demonstrate that although I did poke continuously at the block of wood and sometimes glanced at it, that most of the time my eyes were on the road, and in fact I narrated a continuous and accurate description of all traffic around me? What if I have a certified driving instructor with me at the time who can legally swear that in his professional opinion, I was in full and complete control at all times?

I'm not bringing up the particular scenario above to suggest that's exactly what I'd do, but if your answer is nevertheless "the cops always win", then we shouldn't even be talking about whether there are cellphone laws or what have you, because it's immaterial... the real discussion in that case would be what a complete police state the US has descended into (which it has, I agree). But if that's your point, please forgive me because I'm still working my through the possibilities that exist when there actually is some amount of due process, as meager as it seems to be these days. At a minimum, if we do live in a complete police state, I want to see every person acknowledging that. Until that happens, I'll continue to explore scenarios like this to see what happens when people take it upon themselves to contemplate poking at the system.

So here's the point: if we have a law against "inattentive driving", then having a separate law against "inattentive driving while using a cell phone" is a total sham. It's like having a law against robbing a bank, then having another law against robbing a bank while wearing pants. If the penalties are the same, there's no point in having two laws other than political posturing, which should be called out for what it is. If the penalties are different, then it's not moot whether someone is wearing pants while robbing that bank, nor is it moot whether someone is using a block of wood vs an actual cellphone.

Unless you're filming yourself with that block of wood, it's all the cop's say-so as to whether you were texting.

So if the defense asks the cop in a courtroom to distinguish between a well-painted block of wood and an actual cellphone, at distances equivalent to those on a highway, could a cop do it, even putting aside that on the highway there was the further impediment of the cars moving at high speeds? The cop can certainly claim he THOUGHT it was a cellphone, but he has no way of proving that he didn't mistake one for the other.

This would get especially sticky for him if it turned out to be the case that there was no actual cellphone in the car.

Also, simulating a crime just to distract a cop is a separate crime.

Out of curiosity, can you provide an authoritative citation of that?

Regardless: the proposed activity is not simply "to distract a cop"... it's to highlight the shaky and arbitrary foundations of a poorly thought out law. I'm not saying a policeman is going to welcome that interpretation, but the prescribed defense is a whole lot more than "I was just trying to distract a cop". Was Rosa Parks just trying to make the bus late?

Unreasonable people, by definition, will not reliably heed any law, no matter how fair or rational.

I wouldn't know about that, but you seem to be implying that a law against texting -- while ignoring fiddling with the radio, talking to other people in the car, glancing at folded maps, handing things to other people, etc -- is unquestionably fair or rational. I question that premise.

eah, its not always a crime to be a jerk.

Right back atcha, sunshine.

What if I get a scrap of wood, paint it to look like a cellphone, and get pulled over for texting because a policeman saw me glancing at it and poking at it while driving. Have I broken a law? What precisely or generally would I be charged with?

Taking it further: suppose I get pulled over for bona fide texting, but in the time it takes to be pulled over I launch an app that wipes out record of my having texted, and I switch my phone for the above-mentioned painted wooden block and take the position that I was not using my cellphone... perhaps because I resent the non-coherence of a law that targets cellphone users while leaving numerous other driver distractions untouched... or perhaps because I just like seeming like I'm important... or whatever. Other than going to the trouble of checking my cell records to see if I was sending texts, or just insisting that they don't believe me, what argument does law enforcement have? What if I can point to youtube videos I've posted of me using the wooden block numerous times in traffic, for the hell of it?

I think this would be interesting, as it would force The System to clarify whether doing ANYTHING that looked remotely like texting was illegal. That's a distinction they've been spared so far by the built-in assumption that if it looks like a cellphone then it is one... from a prosecutorial perspective, that's really an important pillar of the law in its current form.

(replying to my own post) It occurs to me that this may result in an ecosystem rather similar to Redhat/CentOS... namely, there may evolve a downstream-from-CM distro that has more of a solely-GPL and not-for-profit bent.

Very interesting link, thank you. If they are trying to coerce dual licensing for all contribs, they may precipitate a fork. To any extent that they are abusive or misguided, I hope such a fork occurs. To whatever extent they use the money effectively to bring CM to a wider audience than they could have, while not becoming jerks, I will defer my interest in such a fork.

During take-off and landing they are usually strapped in their seats.

Even if they were hovering right over everyone's shoulders, knowing whether a user is using wireless or not is impossible.

But seriously, they're their to save your ass, not to kiss it.

I'm not sure what to make of this statement... is this abject hero worship?

There is nothing short of an absolute, death-like issue that you need to be texting at a red light, or anywhere else while driving.

That's one way to see this. Here's another: People are going to use their cellphones while driving, and none of these laws and stings are going to stop that. But now that people think they're sitting ducks while at stoplights, they'll make it a point to defer their occasional usage to places other than stoplights, like when they're on the highway. Whether this is an improved outcome is left as an exercise for the reader.

Hes doing his job, whether you like it or not. Dont blame the police for laws you dont like.

There are many ways to do one's job. I can go into my office and hassle the living crap out of my underlings for little to no reason at all, or I can choose to do constructive things, encourage good work, and not make everyone there feel like they're constantly one mistake away from being fired. Yes the policeman is doing his job, but if you don't think he has discretion about how and what he does, you're out of your mind.