After 9/11, State/local governments began to understand that police communications were a hodge podge of frequencies.
Since then, there's been a slow, but concerted, push to move all State/local police to a more coherent system.

Unfortunately, many police forces are upgrading to encrypted systems at the same time.
We will never really be able to surveil "them" to the same extent as they can surveil us, if for no other reason than they'll make it illegal.

The world wide uptick in antisemitism (and antizionism) is a direct response to Israel's treatment of Palestine.

In Europe, that's on top of xenophobia that has been exacerbated by the protracted recovery from the great recession.

New York is well known for its tradition of aggressive Attorney Generals and
that State has done more for consumer protection than most States' AGs combined.

Your complaints (Tesla, Airbnb) are with the existing laws, not the AG who makes sure they are enforced.

Even the biggest artists make most of their money from touring, merchandising, and product endorsements,
In Asia, where large scale commercial piracy is a fact of life, music artists only make money from non-album sales.

IIRC, Netflix recently added an option for you to watch movies without them being added to the Netflix recommendation algorithm.

You'd think companies like Facebook and Amazon would be so smart as to offer you an option to remove items from their profile of you.

You forgot the part of your argument where you compare today's generally non-partisan bureaucracy with that of the Romans who gave themselves military rank.

And I'm not sure how you expect to have a government (or even a large corporation) without bureaucrats.
What's your alternative?

[Citation Needed]

Rebuttal: The US system works by requiring Corporations to pay the difference between the foreign and US taxes.
Citation: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/United-States-Income-Tax-Treaties---A-to-Z

/Personal income is likely to get double taxed, but that's not what we're talking about.

The tax law, as originally written, once required companies to remit the difference between local taxes and US taxes.
So if Irish taxes are 10% and US taxes are 25%, Ireland gets its 10% and the USA gets 15%.

Then the law was changed so that as long as the money stays overseas, [Company] can defer having to pay that 15%.

Instead of actual business being conducted overseas, the majority of those deferred earnings are the result of transfer pricing.
US Company will give its I.P. to an overseas subsidiary and then license the I.P. back in order to shift profits to the low tax country.

Transfer pricing is legal, but the USA and Europe are looking into it, as it shifts taxable income out of their jurisdiction.
There's also questions about how corporations (fraudulently) value the assets being transferred and licensed.

What a load of crap.
There was a functional legal system at the time Benjamin Franklin wrote those words.

Far too many people try to interpret the words and documents of America's Founding Fathers in a complete vacuum.

Which assumptions?

All climate models assume a lag between a cause and the observed results.
This just means the lag might be 30+ years.

Cable tv/internet franchises almost always come with a build out requirement,
or the cable companies would never do more than cherry pick profitable areas and build there.

These are the same people that are allowing their copper network to rot out in order to push people onto FiOS.

Why should we-the-people have to wait for a conglomerate to make the business case for bringing service to our communities?
Especially if we can do it now.

Yea, but the CEOs risk execution if they do.
The Chinese Government doesn't fuck around with multi-year trials and then a bullshit penalty.

It's my understanding that speedometers are not allowed to under report your speed.
The manufacturing tolerances are such that the speed can show you going faster than you are, but never slower.

Instead of playing with theoretical situations, it's easier to focus on the basic tenets of the law:

If you can see it from a "normal" location, it's not an invasion of privacy.
If you use a R/C to look over a fence, it's like using a ladder to look over the fence.
It's not a viewpoint the average person has, therefore you're invading their privacy.

TFA talks about how they propose to "reasonably legislate"
I'd encourage you to read it.