I've been playing with Geiger counters (and scintillation tubes) for a while. On one trip I took a small basic Geiger tube on an international flight. At cruise altitude the radiation was about 15x the level on the ground and when plotted with the altitude it correlated almost perfectly - down to the small 2000 foot altitude changes. By the way, I haven't measured it, but standing at a store with a bunch of smoke detectors stacked up should provide a significant exposure too.

I think the mistake here is that it assumes that this is one event, but it is two; the negligent actions of a company to appropriately protect their data and then the impact of the release of that data. While the release hasn't yet been an issue, the initial case has opened up customers to identity theft. For the analogy, I think there is an element of intent and ownership that is missing. So I would modify it to be that you park your car on a lot and the lot owner holds the keys. When the car is stolen and crashes (data loss), you have loss. There is further loss as the use of that car results hurting more people/property.

It sounds like the judge did the right thing but dismissing without prejudice. That will allow it to come back when or if they get enough information to prove the case. Will we base the outcome of cases like this on how the data was used by the folks who stole it? How long do we have to wait to determine the cost? What about the impact of ambiguity resulting from multiple large breaches, how do we attribute loss? ... I would be concerned about the second aspect; if a company avoids doing the right thing because they choose to lawyer up and aggressively go after claims from customers, customers may loose confidence in that company and will move their business elsewhere since they feel they were treated inappropriately and "the company got away with it." This could be more damaging in the long run - especially in light of the supposed "no proven losses."

I've been really disappointed in government for the last 20 years or so - science and data is ignored and replaced with any opinion that somebody wants to broadcast repeatedly. It's unfortunate the we have a science guy saying things that only furthers this thinking. Auto racing has resulted in many safety features that are being used - including in space, and vice versa. I think we should rename him, Bill Nye the Science Sty.

There are a lot of good reasons to keep phones enabled - from safety, to passenger entertainment, to providing directions and information, and human connection. As part of the /. community we should be looking at advancing the self-driven or automated car to remove the need for these technology hacks. Let's use our design and development resources to make transportations easier, faster, and more efficient and use our electronic devices to further progress, enable connection and communication, and make us more efficient during these wasted times of travel.