Actually, I find it much more common to have problems because of the (windows only) text font than the formatting itself.

He's not generating profit from this.

EXCUSE ME ?!?!?!?!?!

There are actually much more secure ways to do it than with SSL, but your idea is correct.

The main point people will object is regarding bugs, intentional backdoors and such.

Thank you for posting a valid question, and not only the standard "it will be hacked!!!" kind of comment we see above.

This is the only real question. There is always talks about making the manufacturer immune. The government is the government, so we know what to expect there. In the end, the owner will be held responsible. Which, in turn, will open a very nice market for companies that can make protection systems, remote logging and even insure against this kind of thing (think: medical malpractice insurance). Of course it will take some time before these systems are accepted in court, and we will see the usual dance, but there is hope.

This CAN be done securely. And it might even be. However, any system can be disrupted, or even simply ignored, by those in power. Then again, it already can be done without computerized cars, so I really don't see things getting any worse than they are right now.

Good news is, since the vehicle is computer based, to pull the vehicle over the police would most likely have to issue a computer command, which could be logged, including date, time and identity of the police officer who issue the other. If it is related to a warrant, it could even be linked to court data.

Obligatory reference:

http://suicidegirls.com/girls/Kemper/photos/Droids+Youre+Looking+For/

In theory, not only company can do it in Brazil, but they are obligated by law to do so. The law states that "any crime or offense committed using companies resources make the company in question automatically co-responsible" (that is not the exact wording, and it is a rough translation). It was already tested in court in one case, and the company won, so there is jurisprudence. However, this kind of issue is so expensive for the company that, unless they have very deep pocket and big interest in this kind of fight, it is virtually impossible for them to do so.

Although criminal and civil lawsuits are nowhere as expensive in Brazil as they are in the US, labor lawsuits are EXTREMELY expensive, once the law inverts the burden of proof: for all practical effects, it is the company that has to prove it is not guilty.

The difference between prohibiting something, and stopping it from happening is a big one.

Yup. And enforcing it is the big problem. It is very easy for the company to be sued for wrongful dismissal (or whatever it is called in the US) if they fire someone because of this. Even if the company wins, the cost of this kind of lawsuit is extraordinarily expensive.

Overall, the feeling among micro, small and medium business owners in Brazil is: finding ways to hire less. The costs are just too high. Even if you consider the minimum costs, it averages to an extra 102%. So lets say we have an employee who has a salary of $1000/month. No benefits. That employee will cost the company an average of $2020/month. Or you could say the employee is only receiving has the money. On top of that you have to add mandatory benefits (how can it be a benefit if it is mandatory?!?!?!), legal costs, HR costs etc etc, and each employee can easily cost 3x what he actually makes. I would know, since I was an employee for 10+ years, then a contractor, then a business owner.

labour unions are just making their job, to defend the worker's interests

You can't be that naive. I refuse to believe that.

Labour union, in Brazil or anywhere in the world, are more interested in politics than worker's interests these days. They make decisions based on what will gain votes for their politician of choice, who in return will get public offices for key people from the unions, or benefit the union in some other way.

make crystal clear what's employee's personal things and what is job-related things, and apply this to e-mail accounts. Allow companies to check employee's job-related mail, but not the personal one.

Any role that can't be monitored can't be enforced. I invite you to try.

If you're required to respond to emails, the time you spend responding to them count as "hours worked".

And the key word here is "required".

Yes, if you are REQUIRED to do it, then yes, it should count as overtime.

So companies cannot monitor employees e-mail usage. That is unfair and violate their privacy.
Companies cannot stop employees from using the company e-mail for personal things. That would be unfair.
But if the employees use e-mail after hours, it is considered overtime.

It is also interesting that, in Brazil, you have to pay the employee for overtime even if it was UNAUTHORIZED. Even if the company has a policy in place that authorization is needed. Since (according mostly to unions), authorized or not, the company benefited from it.

As a small business owners myself, I can attest how difficult it is to hire people here. The government and unions make it such a pain that even my employees hate them.

Brazil and US are, in some aspects, at the opposite ends of the labor law spectrum. And trust me, I don't think one end if much better than the other.