checks... phones... physical mail... standing in line at public offices...
I'm from Denmark where I would apply for university, student housing, educational support, taxes, housing support, birth certificate, chance of address, all digital; any interaction with public sector was digital... All money transfers were digital...

Over here it's in my experience mainly paper.. paper and more paper... I've never used a check before...No automatic bill payment system, etc. my bank offers to send a check by mail from their website (I honestly thought the teller was joking when he told me this)..

Health data too... Lack of proper regulation of exhaust... and lack of gasoline taxes we see on most other industrialized nations causes a lot of pollution in the US... This affects both the global environment, but it certainly also kills a lot of people who live in cities in the US... Due to lung cancer, etc....

Please do... I suspect it's the same crowd that thinks EU anti-trust cases against Microsoft, Google, etc. is all about handing out fines to American companies...

I live in SF... I regularly see police cars violating full stop signs... Or driving so fast down hill that it makes sounds when they break...

From what I experience most Americans, as in an actual majority are completely reckless on the road. Even inside a major city. Running stop sign, accelerating towards stops signs and red lights... Entering an intersection while a pedestrian is crossing. During right through a pedestrian crossing while a pedestrian is cross...

Don't get me wrong, I understand that every now and then, we all make mistakes in traffic. But in the US it seems like there is a systemic disregard for public safety.
Note, obviously the roads also configured in a manner where they can't handle the load (street parking on major road). Personally I don't drive in SF, because I don't think it's possible for any normal human being do to so responsibly. That's not to say that I endorse systemic disregard for the traffic law, only to say I understand why people drive the way they do. Unfortunately the implication is that people shouldn't drive (because it can't be done legally), but of course you can't convince an American about that.

Like anything in the US, all the big players wants to keep status quo. In many ways I experience the US as being hopelessly stuck in the 70'ties...
Granted I've only lived here for a little more than a year now, nor was alive in the 70'ties :)

Agree... My point was that it would like be fruitful to argue that against DRM using ADA.
By implication one could also make the argument that DRM which is "actively preventing" automatic transcription in turn obligates Netflix to provide transcripts.

It's a far out argument... I don't think Netflix should be required to provide transcripts for everything. But I do think that DRM is wrong, that it is discrimination against anyone who needs assistive technologies. IMO, applying ADA and similar provisions would be interesting in the fight against DRM.

Isn't it just that her email was supposed to be public record. It's not okay to use a personal email for official purposes that needs to be part of public record.
But it's not evidence... in general you also have the right to not incriminate yourself... But it's not relevant here...
What I don't see is whether or not she even used it... Somehow I suspect high-level officials don't do a lot of email, but have assistants to keep track of correspondence.

Aren't they only threatening to subpoena it so they can make a scandal out of the emails not being public record...
There have been too many non-stories blown way out of proportions like "Obamas birth certificate" and "Benghazi", all complete crazy talk. So when republicans cry wolf, I don't really bother checking if it's a non-story or not... Those stories seems to have the credibility of a tabloid magazine (same credibility level as critical slashdot stories, seriously try digging beyond the summary of all outrageous slashdot stores for a week -- it's depressive how much of it is spin/twits and non-stories blown up to make an outrageous headline and summary).

I see a potential argument that DRM prevents assistive technologies that can do transcription for you...
It true that many books aren't available as audiobooks or braille, but they are not intentionally covered with a plastic film designed to make it impossible to scan them into a program that can read out loud...
In fact many people with dyslexia relies on a scanning books and text-to-speech technology for their studies.

Anyways, yes, requiring all titles to have subtitles might be crazy... But NetFlix is actively preventing disabled people from using their content with DRM. I'm not sure that's okay, it's certainly different from not having audiobooks for all titles.

I'm pretty sure the right wing is called liberals and conservatives in Europe...

Agree... but I fear I would be inventing a wheel that already exists :)

So much coding today is finding libraries and stitching them together...

Whilst, that is certainly true. This is still corruption. It definitely warrants a police investigation with disciplinary action (firing of all involved parties).
It's true that no laws or contracts have been violated, but this is a clear betrayal of public trust. The are proper guidelines for addressing factual errors.
This is the equivalent of police officials writing letters to the editor of a news paper for publication under a false name. Or letters to politicians under false names.

I don't grasp why such betrayal of trust is tolerated in the US.

All the open carry demonstrations and make a gun tricks... All seem to be the kind of sarcastic "social provocations" that one undertake to encourage stricter gun control.
I find it hilarious...

The kind of people who are going on a rampage aren't likely to be thinking all that much. The idea that a deterrent would stop them is pretty out there...

The first line of defence against people like that I social services, engagement and outreach programs. Followed by restricting access to weapons. Followed by police officers trained to do defuse a situation rather than escalate it. Followed by armed police capable of neutralising a threat. And if all else fails civilians capable of defending themselves.

The US often seems to have this backwards...