If this ended up violating someone the subject of a domestic violence order or something, they could be sued for some serious money. I know a woman whose details were accidentally revealed to her ex by a company, and they had to give her $10,000 even though no actual harm came of it. Now if harm HAD come of it, should could have got some serious cash.

More like "privacy hijacking" or "header hijacking"

No, they should limit people to single secret cryptopgraphy.

But... to use key escrow, I presume you have to go to some trouble to get the key from escrow and apply it to specific people. unless of course the escrow is a ruse for just decrypting everything.

The really scary thing is how much of Windows 3.0 is still to be seen in Windows 8. If Windows 3 was the launching pad to great versions of windows later, I'd say let's celebrate this event. But that the product has stagnated as junk for so long makes me shudder.

What do you do if you find a vulnerability in an aircraft? Unless you work for Boeing, if you don't want to go to jail, my advice would be to STFU. This is a case of no good deed will go unpunished.

There was no crash, so no.

Yup, shut up. Nothing good can come from talking. I'm amazed to see how many prosecutions happen where if the person had just shut up they would have had no evidence.

I believe the data recorders are overwritten every flight. So unless they grabbed the black box at the time, too late.

That would be true for the smaller sites, but not for Google, facebook etc.

Then the ad companies just stop using DNS. That would work for about 2 seconds.

In the absence of net neutrality rules, it's an open question whether you could call it extortion.

So Google blocks you until you "opt in", and then the block has achieved nothing? I think users will opt in pretty quick if they can't access facebook.

This is a case of non-democracy - an executive decision by the PM. If a democracy was less executive, at the very least calling for a vote of parliament, or better yet, citizens' vote, we wouldn't have this problem. Even a citizens initiated bill like you have in California would have some hope of overturning something like this.

If... oh say Iran, declared the chief justice of Scotland to be a fugitive, would it make it so? I would say no, because the chief justice is not in Iranian jurisdiction, and not in a jurisdiction subject to Iranian extradition. The same goes for Assange. If there's a difference, I'd love to know what it is.