reminding people that opening their WiFi is the socially responsible thing to do
No, it is not. This is like saying it's socially responsible to leave your keys in the ignition so your neighbors can barrow your car when they need to run to the store.
It's not socially responsible to suggest that it's OK for people to use Internet connectivity they don't know anything about, like who the man in the middle might be. It's not socially responsible to allow unknown third parties to rile though your personal belongings, like those tax returns you left on that unsecured windows share.
Finally, "legal protections" are for people who can afford lawyers.
This year, for the first time since its inception, Norad is not making a simple
NORAD's been putting out
Apple maintains their own gcc fork which supports blocks/closures.
The probability that Apple migrates away from gcc is approaching 1 at great speed.
There is a big difference between seeing drugs on the back seat, or a dead body inside the car, and reporting that, and reporting on drugs found under the carpet in the trunk or in the glovebox if the car was brought in for an oil change...
The mechanic would have had no reasonable need to have searched those two areas to perform the job he was hired to do. Same with a PC tech, if someone brings in a PC to have a CD-ROM drive replaced, there is absolutely NO REASON for the tech to need to search the browser cache or the images directory...
The problem is, because there are different standards of service, what you you've purposed a construction that's beyond what the law and judges can apply equally. Each machanic does different things to the vehicals they're working on and because of that there would be different expectations as to what is private and what is not. A forgotten bag of weed under the seat? Oh, as part of your oil change service, we vacuum the inside carpet. Found a key of coke under the spare? They may have been inspecting it to see if it was still ok; they wouldn't want you to be surprised by a rotten spare on the side of the highway.
Shift this idea to computers. The cache directories are off limits, how about folders on the desktop named DONT_LOOK_HERE? The content of the system desktop backgrounds directory? Which parts of the system are private and which aren't, and how to you apply this equally? This is why you either abandon your expectation of privacy or you don't. If you turn your property over to a third party, you have abandoned any expectation you have in relation to that property.
As for not doing a filesystem search during a cdrom install, if I'm a pc tech, I'm going to run the standard diagnostics on each and every machine that enters my shop for two reasons. First, 90% of the machines I'm going to see are infected with something and I can't ethically allow that machine to leave the store in that state. Second, of that box has a ram problem, I want to know about it before I put a screwdriver to the case. It's not unreasonable to assume that a diagnostic scan is going to alert to a pile of suspiciously named image files in an obscure directory.
The only thing they will respond to is a mass boycott. And considering this is Windows, which is pretty much locked into most large scale networks as it is, not to mention end users' homes, good luck.
It seems to have worked with Vista.
If Microsoft's largest customers (IT departments) reject this version of windows over it's anti-piracy measures just like they rejected last version of windows over it's performance issues, you'll get your wish.
"The Layered Technologies support database was a target of malicious activity on the evening of 9/17/2007 that may have involved the illegal downloading of information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and server login details for 5 to 6,000 of our clients. Layered Technologies responded immediately to this specific incident by conducting a comprehensive security audit of internal processes and procedures.
Between infinite and short there is a big difference. -- G.H. Gonnet