Right. The law can be wrong, and trial by jury (including ethical consideration of the act in question) is one of democracy's central means of mitigating such cases. Try not to forget that this country was essentially bootstrapped by (ethical) acts of civil disobedience.

Yes, but the factors you mention ultimately derive from the rule of law, which means that no crypto-currency will be successful without being government sanctioned.

The very fact that Comey presumes to speak for techies (and seems to think that Silicon Valley represents them almost exclusively) is evidence of why we should be cautious of law enforcement, as well as those who would circumvent it. It may not be so much that we fail to see the darkness that the FBI, et al. confront. Rather, it may be that we also fear darkness in those who claim to protect us without understanding and honoring the breadth of our own principles.

Sure scammers and other bad actors have exposed many flaws in their original system, but CL has adapted and it, more than any other company I can name, has done more to usefully connect people, without being intrusive or getting in the way. Even today it still functions without javascript or unnecessary personal data collection.

An oldy but a goody!

Your child may not get everything right away, but that's probably less important than the examples of thought experiments, and the honest effort to provide some explanation in simple terms. Often when things make an impression that way, children remember and wind up understanding years later.

It's more likely to just prevent people from publicizing their efforts. Perhaps that's what the powers that be are more concerned with, then they have plausible deniability. However, the outcome is that anything truly dangerous that comes of such work is likely to go undetected for longer.

The report is just McKinsey fishing for consulting business.

Both mobile operators and airlines have the same problems, namely regulation enforcing an UNcompetitive environment (which does not apply to the advertising, retail and media based FANG companies) and and economy that is burdened with excessive capital, allowing those so-called competitors to continue functioning with what would otherwise be crippling debt.

I've long said the U.S. telecommunications market is ripe for disruption and that could eventually change things. McKinsey will not.

Yes, links can be abused like anything else, and they don't eliminate the need for good writing. That doesn't in any way override the principle that good writing involves citing sources, and links are the best way to do that.

Setting the source and tone aside is crucial to any good analysis of a subject, so setting the Vortex source aside, I've noticed two things that seem to be relevant here. The first is that while Google is usually pretty good at blocking spam without false positives, it seems to be getting worse at that task, rather than better. Furthermore, it is notably bad detecting when an email is or is not a scam.

The second, more important, point comes at the end of the original note, and it's that Google as a whole has virtually no functional feedback mechanism for error correction. It is very hard to get any attention at all from staff, and even if you can manage it, my recent interactions simply yielded brain-dead responses and endless run around. This was with a botched Google Wallet payment where the firm sent confirmation saying "This money is now yours." but never delivered it. After many hours of investigation, there is still no real answer or means for progress.

Everybody gets things wrong sometimes, but Google seems has strayed a long way from its original "Don't be evil." motto. It now seems to do whatever benefits its bottom line, and costs the least without any regard for accuracy or allowing people to help it fix its mistakes.