Not true. In order to conform to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the new act only prohibits images that are obscene. In other words, it isn't enough that the (cartoon) images depict children having sex, the images must depict children having sex and ALSO must be obscene. Obscene speech was never protected by the U.S. Constitution. Cartoon images are no exception.

True. Then the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that law as well.

No. In the U.S. cartoon images ARE protected by the First Amendment. This was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002. (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)). Sometimes our Supreme court DOES get it right!

Citations please?

And Facebook was notified of the defamation and took no action for 11 months. Why is Facebook not liable? After all, Facebook had the technical ability to delete the account; the parents did not. For all we know, the kid may have even forgotten the password.

Then Facebook is lying, cause they delete fake profiles all the time. If Facebook knew they were hosting defamatory content and didn't subsequently take steps to delete it, then it is Facebook that should be sued here, not the parents of the kid who created the fake page. For all we know, the kid may have forgotten the password!

If the remarks were truly defamatory, then couldn't the girl or her parents simply get Facebook to delete the fake profile?

But if that's the case, then the current speeches by the FBI director are counterproductive to those aims. The only people who would choose not to buy an iPhone as a result of his comments are honest people. If anything, his speeches would encourage criminals to buy iPhones. Surely that can't be what the FBI wants, if it really is as hard to get at their data as he claims.

Exactly. If they really couldn't break it, the last thing the FBI director would be telling the public is "Hey, here's a device that criminals could use and completely cover their tracks!" By persuading the public that these phones provide an impenetrable wall that law enforcement can't get past, they are hoping criminals will feel comfortable recording their secret activities on their phones. This could provide a treasure trove of information and evidence for law enforcement.

No matter how strong the encryption algorithms are themselves, there's nothing to stop the FBI from planting a malicious app (a keylogger for instance). They could even serve Apple with a warrant to require them to install this app as a software update. And there's nothing to stop them from serving a warrant to the user of the phone him or herself requiring them to unlock the device. And, of course, there's always the possibility of exploiting vulnerabilities in the OS or some poorly written app. It's hard to believe that the iOS operating system has perfect security.

So it seems pretty clear that this publicity campaign is really all about creating a false sense of security. Think about it: if the FBI were really concerned, they'd be having quiet discussions with Apple, not shouting their concerns to the public. Is anyone not going to buy the device because the encryption is to strong for the FBI's taste? So what would the purpose of this publicity campaign be?

I think the point is, it should be the consumers who get to decide, not the city government.

It's their search engine. Start your own search engine and you will get to decide what's in it.

Downloading is copying. Before you download, there is one copy, on the server. After your download, there is still a copy on the server and there is also one on your computer which you directed your computer to write by initiating the download. It's pretty simple, really.

You can make low pass filters in the digital domain, just as in the analog domain. It's fairly easy, in fact. Instead of having the digital meter display the direct digitized signal, have it display an average over the last n samples. You could even make the value of n user-selectable, so you can control the amount of "slowness".

What makes you think those products will make you safe from the NSA when the NSA has been found to be intercepting PC shipments, installing their own hardware, and resealing the boxes, then shipping them to the end user?

If chimps are people, will they be able to vote? Hold political office? Cue the jokes.