Is this article really that obtuse? No kidding they live "greener" and use less "energy and materials" - bc they cant afford them! No kidding everyone travels by foot and/or rickshaw - bc they cant afford an automobile! This, in my mind, is simply more proof that there is a serious lack of economic understanding in the green movement, and that some in the movement would be happy to have us live as squatters, riding rickshaws, and leaving less of an imprint on the environment.

Umm, I believe if you file an FOIA request the govt will send you details of .... nothing. You will not find it on the internet either. If you cant find directions of how to do it on the internet, you probably shouldnt do it.,

No seriously, dont write down the passwords. In fact, dont write anything down. No Documentation = Job Security. Wait until you are quitting/retiring and then document everything very sloppily, so they have to call you to consult/train the next guy.

For example, Google retains the right to "[maintain] and [process] your Gmail account and its contents to provide the Gmail service to you and to improve our services. The Gmail service includes relevant advertising and related links based on the IP address, content of messages and other information related to your use of Gmail." For those of you who are not informed on privacy law, in order to read someone's private data you must have some ownership rights over it. This means that Google owns the CONTENT of your emails, and maintains the right to read them at will. This is hardly "dont use it to break the law."

Your claim that Google's ToS are limited to "dont use it to break the law" is absurd and factually incorrect. Google reserves the right to own much of the content that you produce through their services, such as gMail and your search terms. You can verify this yourself at http://www.google.com/privacy. The MS ToS are indeed odd and more restrictive. But to simply pretend that Google is a friendly giant, these days, is naive and absurd.

The reason why cops might follow black people is usually because they incorrectly think that black people are more likely to committ a crime than others. That is racism, but doesn't change what I said above. There are very few circumstances where cops follow people without the intent to arrest them for what they see as a crime. That would be stalking, not a 4th amendment violation.

No kidding. Initiating a lawsuit is distinct from filing a lawsuit. The clown congressman who were told this knew the difference, but did they speak up? No. Their clown show trial went the way they wanted - they appease us lowly ones, while letting their RIAA buddies off the hook. The Congressman having show trials? Who saw that one coming?

Im just curious, dont people realize that Google records everything you do on Android and stores it for as long as they wish, while claiming complete ownership rights over it?? This is the same with all of their products. If the open tech community cant even see through Google's game plan, the world is truly helpless from them.

Can I play the original Oregon Trail on there? I know I can download it and play it on X, but it wouldn't be the same without running it from c:\

If the police are following you than you are probably suspected for a crime. Aside from your truism, I agree with your sentiment.

His driveway isnt public, but is accessible by the public, which is why the court's allow the police to go there as well. Another way of thinking about it is if someone in the public can do it (without your permission or not) than the police can do it. See US v Dunn.

Your confusing what you and I would consider a "reasonable expectation of privacy" and what the law considers a "reasonable expectation of privacy." I agree with you, for what its worth.

I agree with you. The law would not. In your friend's field, you would probably still have no reasonable expectation of privacy according the the open fields doctrine. This is an area of law that has strayed pretty far from public norms.

Im not sure if you are rebutting me or further clarifying what I was saying. But whether the defendant is arguing against the GPS tracking, or the placing of the GPS while it was in its driveway, its still governed under Katz and its following cases. If it is a driveway issue, then it is a question of whether or not the driveway is "curtilage" under the public access doctrine, in which case it would be governed by US v Dunn. That is also a case that implements Katz.