The law, its analysis, and its debate are everyone's business.

It's a very different situation. People doing things that would get them fired seems very different than the "Ordinary course of business" mentioned in the article. In addition to threats of firing, a good e-mail provider will have some security implemented...unencrypted e-mail *when stored on the mail server* therefore *is* more private than a postcard -- the threat of punishment matters.

Rights without limits may be the stuff of fantasy, but the limits should be accountable to the courts and to the people. THAT is the primary objection to this...the lack of judicial involvement. Especially given that people share Internet connections and don't know how to secure their wireless, etc. If you don't believe in the necessity of a fair trial, I wonder if you've never been falsely accused of anything in your life. It's not a fun experience. Finally, as is pointed out above, Internet connections are often business necessities -- the sense of entitlement that you mock is the right of property (note that these people are paying for Internet), one enshrined in declarations of rights throughout history.

All of the smartest people I know have also been into athletics. I've known a lot of moderately smart people who were anti-sport as you are, but all the people who just struck me as complete, all-around geniuses cultivated performance in sports, in music, and in academics. It's not a zero-sum game -- being physically healthy keeps your stress levels down and your brains focused.

Your attitude is very tempting, but just because there's social pressures on jocks to act stupid doesn't mean there's anything actually wrong with valuing sports achievement.

Why Newton said it is completely irrelevant -- the sentiment is interesting, inspiring and useful in its own right, and that's why it has survived on its own right, not as sage wisdom out of scientific *history*, but sage wisdom out of scientific *tradition*. It should not be judged as a "quote" based on its origin, but as a saying, based on how people mean it today, in which case you're entirely wrong -- the saying *does* connote meekness and high hopes for scientific progress.

It is mentioned in the TFA that this all started "Since the advent of congressionally mandated computers in vehicles more than 15 years ago (for emissions), cars have evolved into complex machines that are no longer just mechanical." It says outright that the problem they're fixing was caused by a regulation to begin with.

Are you saying writing is *faster* than typing? Seriously? Few people can handwrite at faster than around 35WPM (I can't handwrite faster than about 10 sustained without hurting myself, but I'm special like that), whereas even a mediocre typer can get 45, and a professional typist can usually get above 100. So what in God's name are you talking about?

This whole "it's a private website" argument has fundamental problems. Perhaps the website is acting legally and perhaps no law *should* be passed against it, but people and websites have social responsibilities beyond legality. Additionally, network effects (especially on a social *networking* site) make it hard for people to go elsewhere, destroying the normal methods of accountability for socially irresponsible decisions. Your post sounds like an attempt to discredit the discussion and say everything's perfectly OK. Yet, in your post, you point out that if a site does something you don't like, don't use it, and that's what competition is for. But that is exactly what this discussion could very likely accomplish: coordinating a boycott and publicizing the fact that many of us don't like the site. It's outside the realm of government. If you think the discussion is pointless, argue that, but don't argue that it's trying to intrude on the private rights of private websites, and don't smugly recommend that we do what we are already doing: coordinating not using the site and supporting the competitors.