Is a POS vendor used by most Australian newsagents. Their contract not only mandates the lack of a firewall, but a writeable share of the C: drive on the Windows machine acting as a server - with no authentication.

While this is incredibly negligent, the support contract makes the vendor completely liable for any security breach that occurs while honouring their contract requirements.

One uses two pairs (4 wires), the other uses a pair (2 wires)

As an Australian who's never visited the Americas, there'd be little purpose for me to ever purchase anything from AT&T. However for years I've received statements and invoices for an American. I tried to e-mail AT&T to ask them to stop but never received any reply. I called AT&T a handful of times and told them about this issue, and received replies like "why does it bother you anyway? Shouldn't you just ignore or delete those e-mails [every 3-7 days for the past 4 years]".

I did eventually solve the issue... I did a forgot password on the account and received the e-mail for it, allowing me to login. On their web portal the only thing I couldn't change was the e-mail address. So I ordered the customer every additional extra I could, including a new iPhone, without being prompted for any credit card information. Haven't received an e-mail from AT&T since.

My experience makes me conclude AT&T are a terrible teleco who feel they're exempt from unsolicited e-mail legislation in both my country and the USA, and have absolutely no interest in helping anyone. But I do hope the customer was allowed to keep the iPhone at no cost

You cite the medical definition from Wikipedia and not the legal definition that varies by state. In my state of New South Wales for example, this would not be "paedophilia" as described in the headline but would be an offence of child pornography, which is the possession of imagery of a child under the age of 18 that is engaged in sexual activity or has a sexual context. That definition as gurps_npc points out, makes criminals of many persons who are also under 18.

... as they all defend the position that Google should publish everything forever, which is completely naive and immature.

You need to appreciate that criminals do have rights, as much as that may disgust some of you. You cannot expect a criminal to rehabilitate when society never forgets their mistakes, but the rehabilitation process is designed to help them move forward in life?

Consider this exert from the Sydney Morning Herald about the matter:

My thoughts are also shaped by the concept of convicted by society and not the courts. Recently a local newspaper published an article naming a business as drug dealers, and even showed photos of the business, as the charges made by Police against the business owner of supply of narcotics also apply for the knowing participation in drug supply from another person. The Police convicted a staff member was selling illicit narcotics, and alleged the business owner knew about this and did nothing. The case against the business owner was thrown out, he was not found guilty of any crime. Yet today this business is continually judged for a crime the courts found the owner did not commit. Guess what the first result in Google says about this business? That isn't a fair world, and seems more like defamation. Unfortunately its not defamation under the laws as it represents the facts that he was taken to court with charges, and there is no information about those charges failing conviction. I'll be encouraging him to pressure Google to remove the articles, or to take them to court. This also isn't the only example from my local newspaper.

Actually thats a red herring with zero relevance to the subject of whaling. Unless I am mistaken, siberian tigers aren't a marine animal poached for food supply south to south-east of the Australian coast.