Bridges often have unused structural elements: walk-ways made unsafe by modern traffic levels, maintenance accesses unused for safety reasons, supports made redundant beyond the factor of safety by bridge improvements, etc. Chips and boards too: FPGAs with 10% utilization, chip designs re-purposed with functional components disabled, subsystems replaced in boards by new designers not confident enough to remove the old design, etc.

Cruft in software is more often removed because (1) software has a potentially longer lifetime than hardware and (2) it's a lot easier to remove an uncalled function from a program than a girder from a bridge! Software cleanup should be an expected and planned part of a project's life cycle.

I agree that the shield laws should be expanded, for the same reasons you laid out. I'd prefer to see it happen through legislation rather than reliance on precedence set by rulings like this one, but at least we're likely to see some progress. As for political name-calling, I don't know if the privilege to hide your sources can be used to dodge libel charges anyway - but politicians could always use thicker skins!

Definitely. And with the decline of print media, it's bound to get cleared up sooner or later. Hopefully sooner!

No, we're not. We are expressly talking about the Shield Laws that exempt journalists from disclosing the sources of their facts; not their right to disclose facts in general. It is the applicability of the Shield Laws to non-print media and amateur journalism that is in question.

It's a balance of what is good for the state right now (getting information used to catch and prosecute illegal activity) and what is good for the state long term (protection from undue threat of exposure for whistleblowers, leaks, and sources). The history that led to the creation of Shield Laws clearly indicates that we the people want a balance. People whose roles are critical to a progressive society may be afforded the privilege of freedom from subpoenas - in limited situations. But we also don't want to de-claw subpoenas as a tool of justice by giving everyone carte blanche exemption.

Regardless, freedom of speech is secure (well, as secure as it is regardless of this issue!) and this is strictly about being forced by a court to disclose sources.

Think for a minute. No special privileges granted to police officers to enter premises in case of emergencies, carry weapons openly, or detain people against their will despite not witnessing a crime? No special privileges granted to fire-fighters to restrict people from entering their own homes or to enter someone's home without permission? No special privileges granted to ambulance drivers to go through red lights?

We give government the power to grant privileges to some people that we do not want granted to all people.

I think the point you were trying to make was that everyone should be afforded the protection of the Shield Laws, not just journalists. I disagree; the privilege to withhold information from a court, despite due process being followed via a subpoena, is powerful. That privilege should only be given to people whose refusal to disclose information about potentially criminal activities is, despite appearances, a good thing for the state and its people. This boils down to people whose jobs are beneficial to the state and its people and who rely on public trust and confidential communication to do their jobs effectively. Doctors, lawyers, journalists, maybe some others. And the importance of confidentiality and trust and whether or not information was given in the context of those jobs is examined when the Shield Laws are relied upon.

If we want to continue to give the press special privileges, someone has to determine who is and is not press. The alternative is to let everyone rely on the Shield Laws. We don't want that because it would significantly undermine the power of the court to ascertain information via subpoenas. Joey "The Wrench" Rigatoni calls his Facebook profile a blog and can't tell you who posted "I killed Jimmy Hoffa" on his wall.

The definitions of "media" and "press" are evolving and the court system is intentionally slow-moving. This unfortunately comes down hard on journalists (and not-journalists) during the transition period.

The protections given to journalists are not those of free speech - we already have those - but rather the shield laws that allow journalists to legally withhold information relating to the fact-gathering process. That's a weighty privilege afforded to few other professions and I don't think it should be handed out to every blogger or rag writer without compromising the court system and subpoenas.

I would cautiously support a "Journalist License" because I think it would more clearly define the rights of journalists and provide security and confidence to sources. I would insist on the following points.

• - A Journalist License should be available to any journalist who meets a reasonable standard of fact-checking and professionalism in reporting, regardless of chosen media or corporate association (or lack thereof).
• - A "Journalist License" must not be an impediment to the anonymous publication of information.
• - The granting of a Journalist License must not include any personal investigation into the journalist.
• - It must not be possible to cancel or invalidate a Journalist License. It may expire, but re-issuing must not impose any additional requirements.
• - Disclosure of a Journalist License must be optional at all times.
• - A journalist must not be afforded or denied any due process or rights as a result of holding or not-holding a Journalist License, except for the "Shield Laws".

There's a lot of potential for abuse by government, but formalized simply and clearly I think it could be done right. That said, I would read very carefully before supporting any attempts to implement such a license.

You can't legally saw the barrel off your shotgun, remove the airbags from your car, or torture your dog. We give government the power to make laws abridging our use of our own possessions. I think modding should be legal, with exceptions as necessary (reselling a car without disclosing modded brake-control firmware, for example), but I don't think the definition of ownership is the right way to argue the point.

If it's legal it can be widely advertised and freely undertaken. If jailbroken phones are desirable, their legality will create a market for jailbreakable phones and (with time) vendors will try to expand into that market.

It appears that provision was intended to prevent "tie-in" sales. A Businessperson's Guide to Federal Warranty Law gives the example of vacuum cleaner manufacturers requiring branded vacuum cleaner bags to keep the warranty in effect.

Because the firmware on your phone is not (yet) a monetized product distinct from the phone itself, I suspect requiring a specific vendor's firmware does not fall afoul of the spirit of the law. Also note that the vendor is allowed to void the warranty because of damage caused by incorrect service or modification, which I would assume can be extended to damage caused by buggy third-party firmware.

Reasonable and responsible activists would have hired safety and security experts to write a report, lobbied a politician to present it, and run a media campaign to raise awareness. But hey, they made their point: there are dangerous radical groups in France that will break into nuclear power plants. They even pointed out one in particular, called Greenpeace.