The point is big corporations think it's find and dandy as long as people can opt-out... that is the point. We as consumers should have to opt-in for these so called "services".

But hey don't blame me. I'm sure people thought sky-net was a good idea at the time too. (Yes that's a joke).

Why is it that we are all concerned with privacy until it's Google stealing it? Sure you can take pictures from public areas but shouldn't Google have to seek permission BEFORE it takes pictures of MY house -- not the other way around. This is the same as spam, junk mail, any of that crap. Why do I have to go out of my way to keep my privacy? It might be "legal" but that doesn't make it right. I don't think Google StreetView is a good idea and considering the number of privacy nuts it seems pretty hypocritical to bash them. Though maybe their course of action wasn't the best. If Microsoft had gone on photographing peoples homes and making a huge archive online we'd have gotten our pitchforks and torches a long time ago. (Going for +5 troll...)

Has no one screamed FLAC yet? I think the problem with CDs was the value in them verses digital downloads -- yes you sacrificed some audio quality to have the songs now and in a convient format without the added silver coaster. I think the only exception is in classical CD's -- which tend to have a booklet that explains a lot of useful information about the pieces included on the CD as well as the being able to rip them into FLAC files since it is nice to hear all the sounds without compression. This is the difference I guess with the latest U2 cd, a drop in quality (sound wise) isn't much of a problem (IMO). If CD's actually added some real value that we'd still buy them and I think some people will continue for the ones that do.