I think you and any poor person who is using a smart phone need to get your priorities straight. If someone is poor, then that person should not be wasting money buying a smart phone or data plan. They have more important things to worry about such as the basics of life like food and shelter.

If you can not qualify or afford either a contract or a monthly plan, then you really shouldn't be spending the money on a smart phone because, honestly, you don't have the resources.

Complaining that poor people are getting soaked in the mobile phone data market is like complaining that poor people are getting a bum deal when it comes to buying champaign and caviar or driving exotic sports cars.. Just because a product is available, it does not follow that the product is going to be affordable for everyone. Every product or service is not not targeted at all segments of the population nor are they required to be priced so everyone can afford them.

Don't the poor have better things to do with their money than paying for a smart phone and its associated data plan? You know, things like food, and shelter?

A) A specific car is NOT being recorded. All cars passing are being recorded. Your argument is invalid.

B) No, you do not need to get judicial oversight for what you have described. A no-one' s fourth amendment rights are not being violated in the scenario you describe specifically because the vehicle in question is in plain view of the public on a public road. Surveillance only requires judicial oversight when it intrudes on a person's privacy, such as tapping phones, entering private locations, intercepting packages, etc. Assuming you are not lying about being a former federal agent (doing so may be a violation of federal law, btw), your agency may have required it (which I seriously doubt), but the law does not.

And, I do not believe you are a former federal agent for any investigative agency of the executive branch.

You are in public and have no expectation of privacy from what can be casually observed. Neither you or your vehicle is being searched. Your vehicle is in plain sight. It is being observed in a specific location, just as if a police car drove past it and the officer noted it. This is no more a search than if a police officer went by, on foot or in a car, and saw you waving a gun around or passing a pipe with pot in it back and forth with a friend.

Stop trying to claim that being seen on a public road is a violation of your privacy. I will say it again: You do not have an expectation of privacy for anything casually observable while you are in a public location. Quit invading our public with your private.

Neither you or your vehicle is being searched. Your vehicle is in plain sight. It is being observed in a specific location, just as if a police car drove past it and the officer noted it.

It is not YOUR money. It would come out of an ATM that you do not own from an account that is not yours, therefore it is not your money.

You, yourself, said that it is only stealing when a removable object is involved. Well, no removable object of yours is involved at all. By YOUR definition it would not be stealing. So, either admit you are a lying hypocrite or that it is not stealing.

It always amuses me when little thieves like you, who have no problem taking OTHER people's information, suddenly see taking bits and information as wrong when it is YOUR information and bits. You are a lying, thieving hypocrite. You deprive others of their just gain because you are too cheap and selfish to do without that which you would not purchase.

Oh, and while we are at it, the definition of stealing is:

Take another person's property without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

The information is legally the property of someone else and you have taken the information without legal right to do so. Therefore, it is stealing. You will note that the definition of stealing does not include anything about depriving the owner use of the thing stolen. Just like the guys in Florida who "stole" empty houses by filing adverse possession claims, which were false, and then renting the houses out.

How about if someone took the information that represents your bank account balance and moved them to his bank account. No mobile object has been removed and only bits diddled. How about if someone cloned your ATM card and sniped your PIN, then made withdrawals? None of your mobile objects have been removed. Still think it is not stealing?

They are freeloaders and thieves, jackass. And, I am pretty sure you are a freeloading thief, asshole.

132 on this article and not one about Michael Jewson and his criminal behavior. No, ever single one is about how the company was stupid to trust their ISP to have backups.

This shouldn't surprise me as most Slashdotters seem to approve of the kind of act Jewson committed. I have no doubt many are envious that he was able to do it while they themselves are incapable of striking back at their former employers.

Says the person who hates America and Capitalism. Really, if you hate America and Americans so much, why don't you just fucking leave?

If you don't trust it, don't use it.

Stop demanding they make special concessions and comply with your desires so you will condescend to use their products. Don't use it, you stupid fucks, because they don't need you. You are not special and no one is forcing you to use their services. The arrogance of your "request" is appalling.

You are a self-hating fuck. If the U.S. sucks so much, why don't you leave and hate on it from somewhere else?

And you demonstrate you ability to read and then not understand what you have read. You completely fail to understand the letter of the law and the stated intent. Rather, you substitute your own desires and ignore the obvious in favor of you opinion in hopes of getting your own selfish way.

Stated bluntly, you have the morals of a 3 year old child. "I want it so it is MINE!"

We are dealing with American copyright law, not the Statute of Anne. Maybe you weren't aware of that, or maybe you are just an asshole. Either one, the effect is the same. And, just to show you exactly how stupid your comment is, in the time of the Statute of Anne, the Anne in for whom the statute is named overruled a colonial law prohibiting slavery. Therefore, I can only assume that because you wish to use the laws of the 1700s, you also want to bring back slavery.

If you don't like the length of the modern copyright as defined in the laws, you work and change the law. Oh, wait, that would mean doing something besides violating copyright law, complaining about copyright law, and liking things on Facebook.

Until you are actually willing to work to change the law, shut the fuck up, asshole.

She did not recuse herself even though she lobbied on behalf of one side? Sounds to me like she gave them built-in grounds for appeal.