I believe he meant physically versus legally (contractually).

It might not matter as much as some things, and it might not matter at all to you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

You are on a bicycle. You have no blind spots.

Nah, man . . that there's just metadata !

Wrong. The vendors WILL be able to offer reasonable technical assistance. Whether that reasonable technical assistance will lead to the prosecutors getting the data that they want is the question.

I'm not sure you and I are reading the same constitution in regards to corporations. Last I checked, the closest the constitution says about the subject is giving congress the authority to regulate interstate commerce. How this affects the power to issue interstate/intrastate corporate charters is in no way "clear" as you claim.

Unless he mutation caused the almost-but-not-quite-chicken to mutate into a chicken, which then laid the first chicken egg...

What is a camera if not a glorified light absorption meter?

It validates their sub-point that Google makes the call, but it contradicts the main point which is that a court decided it should be this way, and therefore should get the blame.

Let me guess: the settlement specifically states that they admit to no fault right?

Just out of curiosity, what is an undergraduate masters? I've only heard of degrees where one precludes the other.

If a person has the option to reduce their tax burden by instead giving that money to some private party, then the argument of whether it is private money or state money is simply a matter of semantics. No one in this thread has made the claim that private parties shouldn't be allowed to give their money to these organizations, but when that donation triggers a tax benefit, then that donation clearly effects the state's bottom line. I would think that this is glaringly obvious, regardless of whichever "ilk" one may belong to. Or are you deliberately trying to obfuscate the discussion?

Even "no penalty" may be too harsh a penalty if you believe he shouldn't receive punishment. If his sentence is "no penalty" then that must mean he's been convicted of the crimes that he is charged with, which happen to all be felonies. Then he'd be a convicted felon, not allowed to vote, find a decent job, etc.

Nope, the simpler answer is that most Americans are completely ok with this shit.

Considering there's 50 available spaces, it sounds like the people of Chicago could benefit from multiple of each of your suggestions. Why does it have to be an either/or situation?