I read their FAQ. It's pretty obvious to me that CARB is going to break or at least substantially degrade E911 service:

Will my GPS still work?
for aftermarket GPS devices, deletion windows, or areas without reflective coatings, will be created in the windshield and the location of these windows noted in the owner's manual. ARB tests showed that placing the GPS device or the external antenna within the deletion window allows the device to operate as effectively as in a car with no reflective glass.

Will E911 service on my cell phone be compromised by reflective glass?
E911 uses a combination of cell phone and GPS technology to direct emergency personnel to your location. Although ARB staff did not test E911 technology directly, cell phone and GPS navigation technology were tested separately and found to work in vehicles with reflective glass. As a result, staff does not expect E911 to be adversely affected by the Cool Cars regulation.

So, E911 will work if I hold my phone up to the deletion window? That sounds great for emergency situations, say after a car crash. After an accident people are in shock so they are not going to think about holding their phone up to a deletion window so 911 knows where they are, that is if they are even able.

Is it too much to ask that CARB actually test E911? They tested cell phone use on one vehicle with wrap around reflective glass so it is absurd to say the know the impact of reflective glass on vehicles since there are many types of vehicles they did not test.

CARB should be be sued in federal court for interfering with FCC mandates for E911.

Anyone remember AOL Time Warner? which is now in the process of being undone....

Content and pipes are fundamentally different businesses. In a content business, there's no monopoly position to use to increase profits year after year. Content providers have to continually produce content people want to see as opposed to providing mediocre service and raising prices every year. If Comcast does this, it will be a disaster.

When you take a picture of a non-public figure on private property without consent where the subject matter is primarily that person, you do not have full exclusive rights to that photograph -- it is not "yours" in the legal or moral sense.

You've undermined your own argument. Since you are correct that such photographs can not be used for commercial purposes regardless of whether the they are taken on private or public property, draconian usurpation of copyrights is not necessary.

This is a perfect example of how security nuts make life difficult even for people in positions of tremendous power. He's the head of the government. Logically, Obama should just be able to say, "I'm keeping my Blackberry" and have his staff figure out how comply to with records retention, etc. It's not that hard.

That Obama doesn't automatically win this one as the most powerful man is world makes me feel better about the continually hassles I'm forced to put up with by the IT department in name of "security.