Can we send these Senators, the NSA/CIA/DHS/DOD/DOiJ fascists, and anybody who opposed Justin Amash's NSA-limiting amendment ... to Russia and get Snowden back?

What kind of idiot would agree to a deal like that? It'd be like trading a blurry Polaroid of a garden gnome for an original Picasso.

So when the thefts and such start occurring, you have zero recourse and absolutely no hope of resolution.

I've been missing a lot of sleep lately, and maybe this should be obvious, but if valet parking works in Rochester like it does in most of the rest of the world, the driver hands his or her keys to some guy in a fancy vest, gets a piece of paper, the guy in the fancy vest drives away with the car, and the no-longer-a-driver wanders off to do something. At some point in the future, the process reverses and the driver gets his or her keys and car back.

Sound about right?

So, I guess my question is how, exactly, does the involvement of the TSA somehow significantly increase the theft risk? Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that having a bunch of wannabe-law-enforcement people standing around the parking lot might possibly discourage the theft of personal items by parking valets? Don't thieves generally prefer to work when there's a few other people around as possible watching what they're doing?

I mean, I could believe that the theft rate might increase if the TSA folks were doing the searches themselves (the more people with access to your stuff, the more likely your stuff walks away), but if it's the exact same people who already have unfettered access to everything in your car, I just don't see a theft issue.

Now, the part about people not trained to look for threats being the ones searching your vehicle is definitely a problem. But theft? I don't see it.

Do you really think that Google is going to be fetching your phone backups, hoping for a wireless password, then driving to your house and connecting to your wifi so that they can... sniff your traffic? Impersonate you on the internet?

Whether or not someone thinks they want to, the question I have is that if you're running a Google O/S, with a good chunk of your stuff available using Google software via Google products, why in the world would Google ever need your wifi password to access your wifi network?

If Google wants to fuck over an Android user (and I'd bet that even Kindle users aren't 100% immune), they almost certainly can. It might be via internally-identified Chrome exploits or something, but I have no doubt they could come up with something.

I'm making that number up, obviously

Ah, the RIAA approach to arguments.

Well, except for the part about admitting it. And maybe being somewhat close to reality. And not bribing politicians to believe my number. And...

He'd rather get zero dollars from them than $5000, because he deems the deal to be "unfair". Um, OK. I'd take the "free" $5000, myself.

If it's a free $5000, sure, it's a no-brainer. The problem comes when your "free" $5000 displaces $15000 (I'm making that number up, obviously) that you might have earned from another more lucrative streaming operation if Spotify hadn't stomped all over the market.

If it comea down to a choice between $5000 and $0, well, that's a bit harder to call...

I just came back from a trip to the Boundary Waters up in Minneosta and let me tell you, if you are one of the unfortunate 20%, be prepared with 40% DEET spray, a head net, and long-sleeve shirts and pants. Otherwise you're miserable up there.

I grew up in northern Ontario. I'm not sure we have any of the 20% left in the gene pool anymore. About the only good thing I can say about the mosquitos are that they don't carry the diseases they have in the tropics.

I always thought of inventing a mosquito trap using some sort of machine.

It's been done.

They do work pretty well, covering approx a 1/2 acre area without too much trouble.

How many people actually make calls nowadays anyway?

For personal use, I'd wager not too many.

I'm texting and/or using data most of the time when I've got my phone out.

I don't have a landline, and my personal cell gets maybe 10-15 minutes per month of calls.

My work phone, on the other hand, probably racks up a few hours a month. I telecommute a couple days a week, and while I use data for most communications I still have conference calls and other discussions. Eventually that stuff might go to VoIP or something, but we're not there yet.

And yes, I use a headset most of the time. My work cell is, ironically, a bit too small to hold comfortably for the length of a call.

But arguably he can't be worse than the slate of directors who got them to where they are.

True, unless he convinces them to pull an Elop.

That meme pretty much bit the dust with the advent of decent bluetooth (or even wired) headsets, or integrated vehicle sets.

If a device is too big to hold comfortably to the ear, you're pretty much an idiot (or, to be redundant, a hipster) to stand there holding it that way if there's a better solution.

At this point, the only significant difference between "tablet" and "phone" should come down to pocketability and how well you can hold it.

I've always said, since the NSA is reading all of my e-mail anyway, the least they could do is filter out all the spam for me ...

Won't happen. We all know that buried in the avalanche of spam are NSA/CIA control messages being broadcast to their agents embedded among the patriot militia population.

To the norms, it may look like yet another penis enlargement discount herbal supplement (at wholesale prices!), but to the government storm troopers, it's a new mission parameter.

if he had just gone to AT&T or acted responsibly in the disclosure, rather than trolling, he would most likely have never been charged.

I tend to agree with most of what you wrote, except that.

It's been shown time and time again that when it comes to reporting security issues, large corporations like AT&T have a very strong "shoot the messenger" tendency. Unless you can do it anonymously, reporting a disclosure to them is almost certain to get you charged.

One might make the point that a phone which is waterproof to 1 meter for 30 minutes has reasonably tight seals and well-fitting exterior surfaces, but that it probably could not handle e.g. being dropped into a shallow puddle

I'd like to think that waterproofing levels would apply up to the maximum designed impact levels, though. That is, if someone says their phone can handle a 2m drop onto concrete, then it should be able to handle a 2m drop into 20cm of water if it's rated for 1m of submersion.

One meter? So that's just enough to stand in water up to your head

It's enough to survive a dunk in the toilet (and subsequent washing in the sink) or a drop into a puddle. In other words, it'd cover 95% of water damage a typical phone might be subjected to.

Otherwise, you're trying to figure out how to make the real world more like the Internet (minus goatse, natch).

I was under the impression that it's the TSA's mandate to make the real world more like goatse, but otherwise I agree with your point.