See what you've done? No more contractor vetting. All those jobs ...

... I could be pre-approved for head of the NSA.

Defendants are griping about the battery in hopes of addressing privacy issues.

Google will focus on the battery. Google has lots of opportunities to improve battery life ranging from educating the customer on how to do that for themselves, to providing a beefier battery that offsets the increase abuse by ad data.

Or, Google may offer one free app (with attendant tattle tale stream) as compensation.

In any case, Google will focus on the battery and will avoid proprietary business practices as irrelevant.

... before my ancestors decided to revolt, but I think there could be some wiggle room for litigation here. (Appreciate that I don't know British law, so I'm applying some American stuff here).

It's sorta like the signs in the parking lot. "Surveillance Cameras In Use," and then a lawyer files a request for footage in a case, and danged if the cameras don't work.

In the matter we have here, what if a kid navigates to a porn site and momma finds out?

Will the ISP be held accountable?

You've as much as admitted you don't know. I do. Do your homework. I am not your home-schooler.

" ... you moron."

By way of example.

... in litigation.

In court, a person could not use the, "Gee ... I didn't know," defense.

As you mature in your effort to become a credible member of the debate team, you will learn the maxim, "Attack the post and not the poster."

I wish you godspeed in that regard.

Let's do a thought experiment, OK?

Let's look at the criteria that qualifies a person for welfare.

Are you imagining the list with me?

Further, let's imagine an individual who has met that criteria and is on welfare.

Continuing, let's mentally disqualify that person for some reason or other.

So now, the individual is in worse shape than before.

They were on welfare because they qualified, right?

Don't they qualify MORE now?

The only sensible reason to deny welfare or to reduce benefits is if the individual no longer meets some or all the criteria for being on welfare.

This one, in my post:

"At least for the first crossing."

Did you know that undocumented people who come to America are not "illegals?"

At least for the first crossing.

A clue is to look at the punishment: A free ride back to point of origin.

A person who crosses the border again AFTER deportation is:

1.) Doing so illegally
2.) Documented (else how do we know?)

Precisely.

Apparently, some people prefer not to think things through.

If we kicked people off of welfare, they would have fewer resources than they have now.

Those people would then qualify for ... wait for it ... welfare.

... before I was let go.

Amplified parenting is trumped by ear buds.

Good point, because this is a slippery slope.

The scary thought is that the government could get a warrant to confiscate ALL of a suspect's stuff on the grounds that evidence may exist in the defendant's truck, house, place of business, in the form of data that exists anywhere ...

To me, the government is saying, "We don't have enough on this guy, so give us everything he's got and maybe we can make a case."

And maybe not.

You are correct that it's a fishing expedition.

Hell, he walked in and got the stash and fled the country. Manning had already done a similar heist before this.

So, we've got minions with access to sensitive data and can't stop them. The government needs to audit itself ... again.

It does no good to wrap this stuff up in a cloaking device if space cadets can glomp and run.