The article linked in this discussion doesn't include the details of Albert's previous offense. While multiple sources indicate that he had paid the fine, the system that indicated the outstanding warrant seems to be the problem.

Alternate article listing Albert Florence previous offense

He was arrested after fleeing from police officers in Essex County, New Jersey, in 1998, pleaded guilty to hindering prosecution and obstructing justice, and was fined $1,574—which he was supposed to pay on a monthly basis. But by 2003 he had only paid $250, so after he failed to appear at an enforcement hearing, a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He paid the outstanding balance less than a week later, but for some reason no one remembered to delete the bench warrant from New Jersey's statewide computer database.

My wife worked as a nurse at a detention center (inmates with 2 years or shorter sentences or those awaiting sentencing) briefly and is currently working at a state correctional facility. Anyone entering either facility type undergoes a thorough search to help keep contraband items out. Employees also go through a search (not quite as invasive as the inmates) as well. The search isn't meant to be "humiliating" but rather to protect all inmates and guards.

Given that Albert carries a letter of proving he paid the earlier fines, it seems that he must have run into a problem with the tracking system before. I don't have personal experience in this though so maybe someone can fill us in on how common it is to carry paperwork showing that past warrants were resolved. If I were Albert, I'd inquire with the courts as to why I was still listed in the warrant system.

Well obviously they can't reply if they unplugged.

I've seen examples similar on the abuse of food stamps. Seeing people pay for soda with food stamps at a convenience store was probably the worst. They'd then turn around and buy a couple packs of cigarettes and a bottle of some alcoholic beverage with their own cash and go out into their new "modified" car. I'm sure there are people that are at both ends of the spectrum here. Ideally foodstamps would be more like WIC (Women Infant & Children) vouchers (wife and I were on that briefly between the time I graduated and found my first job) where only specific items could be purchased.

Turning off the light near the front door generally works. Having lived in a rental community, I've seen people put up a simple sign on the door that indicated they weren't participating. Remembering back to when I was a kid, if the light wasn't on, I was definitely skipping that house to make the best use of time gathering candy. If this guy is getting harrassed, likely he's "deserved" (at least in the eyes of the kids) it by actions through the rest of the year.

That's pretty much what my employer has done. Sites are categorized and when we attempt to visit a blocked site, we get a page with details of why the site isn't accessible and a link is included to make a request to change access. For some categories, we also get a link to override the block (have to login with our VPN IDs) or we get a link that basically says we acknowledge that we're visiting a site where caution needs to be used. I'm not sure what software is being used, but seems a reasonable approach for an employer to take to control bandwidth usage and site visits for non-business purposes.

So your saying all we need is the Gatherer addon and we're set?

I haven't seen a huge amount of billable rate information but 10x seems a bit high compared to those I have. The range I usually see falls in the 1.5 to 2.8 multiplier range for what a customer is billed versus employee salary (not including benefits). If you are seeing your work billed for 10x the amount, perhaps you are to blame for undervaluing your work.

I think where you have more of an issue voting 3rd party is when the Republican and Democrat candidates are very close in the race. If the 3rd party candidate doesn't stand a chance of winning (which means trusting the polls unfortunately), you may find that you have to vote for one of the two possible winners that is either closer/less opposite your views.

I can see it now, a motion gesture of "touch your elbows behind your back" to start any activity for the hot receptionist

Might want to read up on Executive Order 13233 - Further Implementation of the Presidential Records Act. Most information will generally become available within 12 years (with several exemptions listed in the link, primarily for security reasons).

Voting for the third party candidate is throwing your vote away.

I voted for Kodos.

I agree that it needs revised or removed. I just doubt that the first thought of the Nissan engineers was "how can we invade the privacy of our customers".

I can see where it could be abused, but maybe the original intent was to interact with traffic services so people could build better traffic reports (i.e. traffic on route X moving at 15 MPH, recommend alternative route Y moving at 45 MPH).

Even if not publicly known, as long as it is something that can't be used against you, it is fine. Saying you "view porn" online isn't that big of a deal for most people. Would I want my parents to know something like this? It wouldn't be my first choice, but if they found out, it isn't that big of an issue. I'm sure my parents wouldn't care to explain some of the "romance novels" my mother had or magazines my father had. The ability to blackmail someone with this sort of information is greatly dependent on the individual, but I'd guess that most people prefer it remain private, but wouldn't care much if it became public.
b The greater concern here, as others mentioned, is the use of government systems or even employer owned systems. I doubt most people will accept funding people viewing sites like these. The viewing also opens up possible harassment lawsuits, which may end up further funded by the public.