It would be nice if people could get their heads around the *fact* that if/when a privately or publicly held company removes user contentfor any reasonit does *not* violate the first amendment. Period.
It is very simple: the first amendment applies it *government* actions restricting free speech.
Anyone who argues that Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, etc are violating their first amendment rights is being willfully ignorantand it’s pretty much a red flag that the rest of their rant is likely dubiously ground, too. Meh.

Indeed. Points for spin...interesting meta issue.

As a rare book dealer and ABAA/ILAB member, I was pleased and impressed with both how many in the trade joined this and how quickly it came together. I was more impressed to see how quickly ABE backed off...
Little things can matter...

This need not be an either/or question, rather one where all who are able are ârequiredâ(TM) to work, but are guaranteed a livable income. This could allow for a number of advantages over current state, wherein jobs that are often underfilled or unfilled could be robust (e.g. daycare/school support, elder care, after school tutoring/reading programs, etc). It could have interesting implications for boutique startups in arts and crafts (think Kelmscott, not preschool).
Whether we like it or are comfortable with it or not, we are coming to a monumental tipping point...as destructive to our post-industrial/information age as industrialization was to feudal/Medieval age. Either we approach it with care and planning or we resist and fight and...most likely...wipe out a large portion of the population as we dogmatically cling to centuries old concepts of wealth, power, ownership, and nationstate. Iâ(TM)m hoping for the former...but not holding my breath...

Meh. Admittedly, I've pretty much ignored all such events since Alienware functionally went a way.

I have no issue with security checks...nor to pat downs (of which I have had a few hundred, as I've opted out for years now). I have a *huge* issue with the expectation (tragically routinely met on a day-to-day basis) that people blithely consent to what amounts to a strip search without probable cause in order to board a plane. IAAA, and the 4th Amendment *should* mean something to people. Fear and dogma drove the adaptation of a technology that offers absolutely *no* substantive safeguard, costs a stunning amount of money, and effectively undermines *real* security practices due to the over-reliance on the 'efficacy' of Security Theatre. It would be nice if some form of rationality and thought could enter the discussion. I'm not holding my breath.

The electrical had shut down just as we boarded and they had to reboot the entire system...watched a full load cycle (complete with a wee penguin in the upper left...).

If you are not managing an archival collection, you are not a curator. Get over yourself and find an appropriate descriptive term. meh

I'll preface by saying that I've used Glass for several months now and find them to be very interesting/useful and a valuable extension of one's smartphone, etc.

Personally, facial rec would be *hugely* useful for me. I am appalling with names/faces and having name/company etc available when someone came into the booth at a show or the like would be *wonderful*. I do think, however, such an ability needs to be limited to ones contact list/social media connections...that is, it should 'recognize' people you *know*...but not random strangers on the street.

I do not disagree with you that there are differences...but so what? The substantive issue is 'do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy' on the data stream? Given the very nature of the stream, I think it is very hard to make that argument. *If* we accept that the stream itself is 'public space' and *expect* Big Data aggregation (from companies and governments alike), what can we do to 'protect' those communications that we do feel are private? Consciously or unconsciously we've been relying on obfuscation for a couple decades or so because these issues are wildly complex and annoying...and there is almost certainly no "good" answer.

Nice analogy. I suggest, however, that encryption is the difference between riding the car wearing a sandwich board with your message on it, viable to any other passenger and the cctv in the car VERSUS the message tucked safely away in your wallet. You have an expectation of privacy to the later...I'm not certain that is true for the former.

Mind you, issues around forcing encryption keys, etc is another matter entirely...but again, my point is that we need to separate the *real* issues from the *false* issues.

Lack the time (or interest) in debating this deeply with you, but I'll add just a bit because your response is *exactly* why it is so difficult to discuss/address substantive issues in this area:
1: You're missing the point of the PVD. Probable cause is irrelevant. At one level, PVD does an end run around it. The cops are not breaking in looking for pot plants...they are standing in 'public places' watching as certain people carry pot plants down down the boulevard. Simply put, PVD states that an officer of the state need not avert his eyes from conduct being executed/displayed in public.
2: The 4th Amend issue here is whether you have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' when you send an unencrypted data stream over the open web (that is, over an unknown number of servers and/or hardware owned by various private and public entities). It boils down to what you are doing is private spaces vs public spaces. You have an expectation of privacy in private spaces...and you do not in public space (or you have a radically altered one).
There are a *myriad* of complex and subtle issues in and around privacy, security, encryption, and data capture. Unfortunately, the tendency to take a simplistic "everything is private" is pervasive and yet simply is rational or true...and, more importantly, creates a great deal of noise through which it is difficult to discuss the substantive issues involved.
To be clear: I am a privacy wonk. That said, pretending web traffic is somehow 'protected' is simply ignorant. If we are going to start thinking deeply about what is private and what is public...and what we must do to keep our private communications private, we have to stop acting like children and deal with the reality of how our tech works and what "privacy" means in a hyper connected world.

I am an old geek and one with both a long background in sec matters and a law degree (though I'm pleased to say I don't actually use the later). None of this should be surprising or, in most ways, particularly annoying. A great deal of 'this' falls under a rational extension of the Plain View Doctrine (e.g. if you place your pot plant in your front bay window facing the sidewalk, you can not reasonably expect a foot patrol cop to avert his eyes...or complain when there is a knock on your door). I and others have long said that what you do online is 'public' (unless you are using encryption and/or various various methods to make yourself anonymous)...unencrypted email, social networks, etc...all pass as data streams that can be 'seen' by any server they pass through. Unless you are encrypting your datastream, you simply can't reasonably expect people (governments, especially) to avert their eyes from the waves of data washing over them.

There are huge, important privacy/security issues in play...but getting wound around the axel in a dogmatic response of "OMG, the [insert favorite agency here] is aggregating openly flowing datastreams" is a waste of time and effort and decreases the signal to noise ratio as to the substantive issues in play.

Also and more broadly, read Brin's Transparent Society. Still the best foundational work on this subject area...

http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Man-using-cluster-balloons-lands-in-Newfoundland-4811559.php

The funniest thing I've seen here. Bravo, AC. Bravo.