If everyone behaved the same as this guy, I'm sure that Verizon would not be able to offer the service at the consumer price.
70 Terabytes would certainly be the equivalent of "unlimited" to me. This isn't to defend Verizon, as I do agree that they could find a way to make the limits of their plan more clear.

I Suppose Verizon COULD, instead of using the term "unlimited" call the plan: the 50 Terabytes / month plan.

But, for typical consumers, this *IS* unlimited and those numbers just might make choosing an Internet provider more complicated. In fact, if my parents were asking for advice on an Internet service, I would indeed say: "oh, don't worry about those numbers, that pretty much means unlimited for you guys".

By adding these numbers to the plan, competitors could simply up the numbers, while adding no real value for the user. Even Verizon could even offer a 100 Terabyte plan for "only $20 more a month". The average consumer would see this as value, while in reality they would just be paying more.

Brace yourself for the awesome as I go to every gamestop to buy every first generation XBox for $40 a pop. Once the new console is released, I'll sell them on EBay as "XBox 1, slightly used, only $200".

People of Earth, who by their access to the Internet are arguably connected to the internet are served with a court order to forget this information.

Robots will be so good at complex tasks that they will find it overkill to use one for simple tasks. They'll simply say, why waste a robot on this task when we have all of these stupid humans who are willing to do it for basically nothing. Half the quality at an eighth the price. Can't beat that.

Nice GUI! Do you do freelance?

Suppose I upload content that is copyrighted, and I do not own. I then orphan the account. Obviously, that cannot be brought into the public domain this way. Why should copyright be any different for content that I own and post. It just makes no sense. Wouldn't the person using this newly "public" content have to prove that the abandoned account was mine? This whole idea just baffles me.

I did. I probably over-read because I got caught up in 3 other articles about the subject. I'm sorry about the confusion. My main point stands. The real issue is that this requires an insecure system in the first place.

This looks like a module for apache that, while sinister and clever, must be installed like any other module. Presumable, unless I'm missing something, this requires root access. If this so called "back door" (debatable) is on a system where it shouldn't be there is a bigger question on how was access to install it obtained it the first place.

Then, any cameras being placed should be openly accessible to the public in real time. I won't like the presence of cameras, but at least this is consistent with the sentiment that public places are not to be considered private.

Same goes for giving up your password. If the TOS forbids that... can a company compel you to?

What if Facebook's TOS forbids logging in as another user? Would it then be legal for the company to do so?

I just got a call from this lady who said I could make at LEAST that much EVERY WEEK all at home using my computer. I even get to go on a cruise for a small deposit.