That's a GOOD thing. It's available to everyone, and privacy concerns are well known.

With it limited to only certain people, nobody knows quite the capabilities. It can be used against the public, but not by the public.

It's unfortunate, but semi-secret laws are the norm. Read through the US Government's Code of Federal Regulations. Just about any technical area will tell you to abide behind some document that is behind a paywall. ANSI/IEEE/ASME and some industry organizations all charge (often exorbitant) fees to read a copy of what has been made 'law'. The government looking to industry to self-govern is an EXCELLENT idea... but it often puts people at risk because (outside of companies) they can't afford to purchase every spec they are legally obliged to follow. Hell, people have 'broken the law' by using an old/outdated version of a paywalled specification. (Yes this is called 'code' and now 'law', but it still leads to fines and jailtime).

This might actually be an 'excellent' security model. Currently on Firefox I rely on noscript for security, whitelisting sites that I trust.... but this does nothing for JPG/GIF/whatever bugs.

I'd much rather have untrusted sites displayed as text only, with everything other than BR/line breaks filtered out in a more simple/stupid/secure renderer. Think Lynx in a browser.

Odd timing.

I'm currently in Pueblo, CO at a test site 30 miles outside town. There's only one paved road to the facility and it's from Pueblo.

I usually fly into Denver, drove through the Springs, to Pueblo and then head out to the site. Simple trip, just get on 25-S and drive. Get off on exit 101A and drive ~30 miles.

Well, I wanted to test my new gps. It had me drive down to the Co Springs airport and then take a ~30 mile dirt road. Actually got me there quicker, but the facility keeps that gate locked :/