and I promise you that there are simply not that many people who desperately need an emergency
I lost count of the times I've had to duck into a rural/small-town MickeyD's or coffee shop because the stupid employer-issued hotspot/3g/4g device didn't have enough bars to get a decent connection.
These areas where the population density is too low for good cellular data coverage are also places adjacent to where cable and dsl availability drops out owing to too few customers per mile. This is where you can expect people to come in to MickeyD's for that
I like the idea of having regular attempts at declassifying FISA court decisions, but it says "where possible" and doesn't say who gets to define what's possible. I have a feeling that "if the public learns of this, they'll hate us and we might lose funding" would make declassification impossible, and "if this guy's defense learns about this, they might actually be able to defend him and we want him imprisoned" would also make declassification impossible. I didn't see a provision to ensure that the people who decide about the declassification are not people invested in the secret activity who would use the decision making ability to obtain outcomes in a manner bypassing the legal and political systems.
Domain is specific to country by registrar.
So, since I'm reading Slashdot in USA, I shouldn't have to worry about links to goat.cx ?
In general, I think that when countries disagree about what sort of internet activities are permitted, either the least restrictive choice will be predominant, or some sort of filtering (like that for which China is famous) will be implemented.
Meanwhile, someone who isn't Google and doesn't have offices in the EU will surely make up a page of links to this information. If the page generates traffic, someone will pay for add space there.
That IP is not a person. Period.
That IP is not a person. Yet. Give the Supreme Court a little time, would you. They'll have IP's making unlimited campaign contributions before you know it.