How about wireless access for a lower income area of the city instead of one of its wealthiest? Most of the companies and residents in the area can afford high speed connections, so why not open up other neighborhoods like Upper Manhattan to neighborhood investment and in the interest of helping kids in low income areas gain access to broadband services for free?

I am sure they were under the impression that like all people who look vaguely Asian she was secretly a Kung Fu master turned rogue.

Campaign contributions do not influence the Supreme Court, which would be the logical place to argue against a violation of anti-wiretapping laws or the right to privacy. However, IANAL, but nobody is placing this device in your house without your knowledge so I am not sure this would be considered wiretapping so much as a "service" you requested.

You are falling into a moral philosophy trap here. First of all, homicide is against the law as is the behavior most closely associated with high murder rates. Pirates and piracy in fact only existed because of regulated markets and privateering existed expressly as a regulatory measure. However, this regulation does nothing to stop murder. Secondly, what is human nature? Violence? Greed? Domination? If human nature is overcome by law and regulation, is it up to some non-human third party to institute objectively good laws for humankind? This brings me to my third point which is that you seem to presuppose an objective good for humankind but leave what that is undisclosed. Is murder bad? I think it is, but I also think domination of others and state violence should be included in the bad category. I would even argue that the state's monopoly on force is an example of just the kind of market bullying that you feel leads to unregulated markets. If so then I would conclude that the market on force being controlled by the state but providing lackluster and inconsistent results leads to people taking matters into their own hands which leads to higher rates of violence, etc.