Sure, people in hospitals need information, but surely something which is assisting in the physical process of a surgery (etc.) doesn't need to be in the cloud, does it?
As someone who works for a company that writes medical systems software, I can tell you that at the very least the systems need network connectivity so that the different systems can consolidate data in one place for examination. The problem is that any network connected device is potentially vulnerable to random Joe plugging a laptop into the network and hacking away.
To illustrate why that's bad, I've run into situations in which a client site (read: Hospital) outright prohibited using SSL/TLS on their servers. They deemed their internal network secure and refused to budge on allowing secure communications between the clients and the servers. Authentication information should always be encrypted and some administrators just don't get that.
As a whole, I think the medical technology industry needs someone to force tighter security requirements on software developers and medical sites as a whole. This is a good thing in my opinion. If that appropriate someone is the DHS may require a different discussion, but some government body needs to start pushing information security in the medical industry.
the cluster must still be in the process of formation.
Well, it's still in the process of formation where we can visibly see it. Given that it's 12.7 billion light years away, I'd like to believe that the galaxies are properly formed at this point. Though, given that not one person knows exactly how long it takes to form a proper galaxy, who's to say that it isn't finished. It's all best guess I suppose. Really cool science though, knowing that light from 12.7 billion years ago is illuminating our planet, however faint it may be.
Basically they are complaining the the DMCA makes them responsible for policing their own content at their expense.
It's not the government or the ISP's job to monitor and/or determine the usage of the content available on the internet. Were I to publish a game, for example, it would then be up to me as an individual to research, inspect, and determine if anyone is infringing on the copyright of my game. Just because they're a large entity doesn't mean they should be exempted from the same issues facing the individual content owners.
Why should the ISP's be forced to swallow the costs of such a manhunt, when they receive zero benefit from the search, it costs them money, and it displays them negatively in the public light such that their brand is devalued, however slightly.
Essentially, content owners should be, and are, responsible for making sure that everyone who uses their content is abiding by their specified licenses, etc. If you're complaining about the costs that you incur whilst enforcing your licensing model, and want the government to help out, perhaps you should re-evaluate your licensing model. Of course, that particular dead horse has been beaten so severely, at this point, to be unrecognizable.
"The urge to destroy is also a creative urge." -- Bakunin [ed. note - I would say: The urge to destroy may sometimes be a creative urge.]