That's not really true. At least, in a stable dictatorship (like, say, DDR, or late USSR). There is certainly a gray area with unclear borders that shift over time, but people are generally well aware of what falls into that area, and you can avoid it and the associated risk if you so desire.

The part that is hard to avoid (but also rather unlikely if you don't deliberately seek it) is when you get personal attention of those in powers... say, becoming Saddam's personal cook? It was a very risky occupation, I'd imagine.

Speaking of which... I hope you do have those papers proving you are a citizen. It would be a shame if something happened to the birth record archives, wouldn't it?

Why the difference between "int function(int)" and "int delegate(int)"? Why not a single type for callables?

Considering the price of energy and the whole economic crisis, a lot of people would probably rather plug in manually if the losses are any more than a couple of percent. Even 1% would probably put a lot of people off if they were aware of it.

There's a reason that there's "American English" and "English".. I'm not sure why you have to make it about "winning". That's one of the major flaws when it comes to humanity in general, not being able to realise how life doesn't always need to be about "us vs them". Or "US vs them". Ho ho ho..

... a position which is frightfully naive. Of course making things more illegal is a deterrent. It used to be totally legal to drive with your kids in the back of your truck on the open freeway. It's now more illegal (at least in California) and you don't see (very many) people driving on the freeway with kids in the back of their truck.

All officially recognized crimes are punished with the intent of deterring future crime, and you live in a time and place which ranks as among the most peaceful and civilized periods in all of known history. To suggest that this concept does not work betrays a stunning lack of understanding and respect for all the work put in by the millions of people who worked to establish and maintain the system that provides such domestic peace and tranquility.

Did you actually think that spending 10 years in jail actually compensates the parents and loved ones of a murder victim? Sorry, if they're dead, no amount of punishment will ever bring them back, and until you've personally experienced the loss of a close loved one, you cannot really understand just how devastating such a loss can be.
  However, even sociopaths can understand personal injury and suffering even if they lack the ability empathize in any way with their victims.

You have done nothing to argue against the OPs primary thesis. Namely that:

          "An API is a collection of facts"

Did you read the article? The bit quoted in the summary (on slashdot) was the first mention of terrorism, and, again, pointed out there was no reason to suspect it. It was halfway through the BBC article. If there's yellow journalism here, it's very watered down, and it's entirely on the AC who submitted this to slashdot. What "more balanced new source" are you talking about? Tell me you're talking about more balanced than slashdot and not BBC.

Because Dancing with the Stars is on and it's that nasty Obamacare that's the real threat to freedom!!!

Well, the article I linked to was from 2008. And, given that Obama didn't change it, it's still true. You could label it "Bush/Obama dragnet approach."

I'm surprised at the way they were doing it. I'd think they'd have a backdoor into the telco to do this, but apparently this location info normally gets sent out of the country and they just had to intercept it? WTF?

But this isn't exactly ATI's first time around the bases... how did they forget how PWM control works?

Pretty soon, the argument about whether you have in any given facet of your life a "reasonable expectation of privacy" may take on a whole new meaning.

No, it absolutely will not. People need to get through their heads that just because your rights are violated, that doesn't mean expecting them not to be becomes unreasonable. If someone breaks into your house every day, it doesn't become "reasonable" for them to do so, or unreasonable for you to expect people to stay out of your house.

The logic espoused by the quoted idea is the same as saying if police were to start strip searching everyone without cause, it would be reasonable simply because it always happens.

Stop that.

I think we had a good time with the Internet, let's hang onto those memories. The NSA and Social Media were starting to ruin it anyway...

I'm not much of a cop movie fan anyways, but if anything movies show police as having too broad of powers compared to real life.

Sorry, but there are actual laws, and they do matter. Law enforcement has specific bounds that they have to work within. Specifically to South Carolina, the law is 23-1-15. Without that police can look into a criminal case but they cannot enforce any traffic laws within the area.