allow your ISP to give you gradually sterner warnings and possible punishment if you download copyrighted material

Sloppy stuff from DailyDot : we would probably all blow through our six chances on the very first web page we visit, since just about everything that is downloaded has copyrights. The distinction between authorised and infringing use of copyrighted material, which appears to have whooshed the article author, is likely the reason this scheme is having trouble getting off the ground.

"Mosaic-ify" could be webimified to the word "mose".

It can be both a noun and a verb

what has become of Conrad Black?

I'm happy to report that the recalcitrant crook has been sent back to prison . I confess I particularly enjoyed the reports of the fragrant Barbara fainting in the court room. That Connie submitted his letters of reference written by fellow inmates was also a delightfully humbling detail.

It's the same thing that happened to that other guy who made the discovery of 'Watson's Double Helix of DNA'

I dunno, the pair of names "Watson and Crick" are often associated with the double helix; the real scandal is the lack of credit given to Rosalind Franklin.

It is your analogy that is ludicrous and you continue to cling to it as though it has some relevance. It has none. It is up to Google to follow the law. The law governs the collection, use, retention and disclosure of personal information - just because the data can be readily captured doesn't then make it "fair game" for whatever a third party wants to do with it. I readily concede that "fair game" is precisely the situation in the US - personal infomation is an asset that can be bought and sold like any other - but you should recognise that the rest of the civilised world does not share this lackadaisical approach. It always puzzled me that in the land of the free, there is barely any protection for individuals' privacy.

Nice little discussion you're having, but all your analogies miss the point completely. I don't know how you got on this "plain view" furrow, but it has no relevance. The simple fact is that personal information - recorded information that uniquely identifies an individual - has special status. It's special. The law says so. The legislation governs, among other things, how such data is collected and how it is used. Whether or not it is in "plain view" is neither here nor there. Google completely ignored the law regarding collection of data.

I understand how all this legislated information privacy is terra incognita for you, but these are not my opinions, they are those of the Canadian Privacy commissioner. You should check out her website.