In a world of billions of people there are far more people capable of taking the work of others in areas such as crytography, programming and economics and building someone new and amazing than you seem to give credit for. It isn't just acknowledged experts who come up with great ideas.
What right to privacy is that? He had an expectation of privacy but no right to it.
Ah, the great call for more licensing and regulating. Just what we need, more licenses and regulations. If your car is mistakenly towed you certainly are entitled to compensation. What makes you believe that the towing business isn't responsible for their wrongful acts?
You aren't ineligible for flood insurance because your property isn't in a federally defined flood zone, other than some areas where the risk has not been analyzed ALL areas are defined as either high risk or low to moderate risk. There is no such thing as a "no-risk zone". If you want to purchase flood insurance for your home you can.
You aren't forced to purchase flood insurance. If you want to borrow money your lender may condition their loan on you having flood insurance just as your lender may require you to have fire insurance even though in 150 years your house has never burned down.
What relevant information are they hiding? If the police pull you over for speeding because they got a tip from the NSA from an email you sent that indicated you were delivering drugs, the reason for the stop was speeding and that is sufficient. It doesn't matter, legally, what the real motivation for the stop was.
They aren't lying on the search warrants. You don't understand how parallel construction works.
The cop doesn't need a "gut feeling", he only needs to see a violation of the law to have justification for pulling the vehicle over. That he was tailing the vehicle for 30 minutes waiting for that violation because he got a secret tip from the CIA is of no consequence, the US Supreme Court ruled that pretext stops are legal and the real motivation for the stop is irrelevant.
The Supreme Court made it clear in Whren v United States that pretext stops are completely legal. Failed to signal a lane change? The police now have a legal reason to stop you, detain you, pat you down, search the passenger compartment of your vehicle, have a drug dog sniff your car and on their claim that the dog alerted tear your car apart looking for drugs.
The article states that not only can the traffic be re-routed but it can be re-routed unencrypted. From the summary: "These communications are captured in clear text (no encryption)" The vulnerability bypasses the encryption and the routing.
In this case the assertion is that a malicious app that doesn't have root privileges can re-route traffic. Apps without root can't reroute traffic, or look at RAM, controlled by other apps. If you know of a way for an unprivileged app on a Linux or Windows box to intercept and re-route a VPN connection, let us all know how it is done.
There is no evidence that they were not customers, he simply claimed he was not able to identify them as customers. As someone who was once sued in Texas by a scummy publicly traded company for my alleged to be defamatory comments I posted online about their pumped up and soon to collapse revenue, I can assure you that companies can and do lie in their assertions to the court. In my case the intent, plain as simple, was to stifle public discussion of the company so investors could continue to be bamboozled by glowing press releases. The case was tossed out of court because they had no jurisdiction over me in Texas so we didn't get to the point of having to prove it was a SLAAP suit with no substance. And the company's stock soon collapsed as it became obvious that they were in fact exactly what I and others were asserting that they were. While I am sympathetic to a company being defamed online, I think we need to give great deference to the right of people to anonymously speak out. There is no even playing field in most cases, companies tend to have more money than the average consumer and if criticism is met with a lawsuit it serves to chill speech to a substantial degree.
The vulnerability is interesting. I'd be more interested in someone writing a tool to exam fonts for any that exploit this flaw and then seeing how many trace back to the NSA
All this talk about storing excess PV power. In almost all cases the excess PV power generated by one house flows 100' to his non-PV neighbor who pays the utility exactly what the utility is crediting the PV provider. No power is stored, the "grid" is hardly used at all. Yes, if the number of houses generating excess PV power started hitting 50% or more there could be a "problem" but the real problem is utilities are guaranteed profits based on their capital investments. If their capital investment needs drop, their profits will drop. That's a good thing. No need in the future to drop off the grid entirely if the utilities get too uppity. Just have enough storage capacity for anticipated over production, more closely align peak PV capacity on your house with your peak power consumption and just use far, far less of the utility's expensive power. No doubt they'll be crying about that as well. Let 'em cry. Society doesn't owe utility companies ever increasing profits based on ever increasing capital investments. Or entire neighborhoods will cooperatively put up solar and basically turn the entire neighborhood into a single connection to the utility and sub-meter internally. Instead of the utility paying me a penny for power flowing to my neighbor, we work it out amongst ourselves and leave the utility out in the cold. So they turn to FUD and nonsense about storing excess power and how terrible it is they can't buy your power for a penny and sell it to your next door neighbor for a dime.