Let's look at the Florida statute:

815.06 - Offenses against computer users. -

(1)Whoever willfully, knowingly, and without authorization:

(a)Accesses or causes to be accessed any computer, computer system, or computer network;... commits an offense against computer users.

(2)(a)Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), whoever violates subsection (1) commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

So you committed a felony punishable by up to five years in prison, informed the victims, and documented your crime in explicit detail on your blog. That's a tad more dangerous than using unsecured cookies.

http://www.technomancy.org/google-suggest-venn/#start=Why+is...

If you're worried about ways settlement offers can potentially be used against you, remember that the rule only bars using such evidence for the purpose of proving liability. As long as its offered for some other purpose, it can be allowed in. And once a jury hears the evidence, in practice it doesn't really matter for what purpose they were told to consider it.

Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise

(a) Prohibited uses.—Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party, when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction:

(1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish or accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim

Those are the Federal rules. They vary from state to state, but most are pretty close.

Is it just me, or does JS seem like its fast becoming the new object code?

Where any approach to law enforcement conflicts with the fundamental principles of ordered liberty, including privacy, that approach is improper. If we attached video cameras to all citizens that would prevent a lot of crime, but it would be a tremendous violation of privacy rights.

"Why is it bad if the government.. try to prevent harm to private citizens but not bad for individual or small groups of citizens?"

Because the government is unlike any other organization. It has a monopoly on the use of force. If a gas station uses CCTV cameras, and I feel that violates my privacy, I can choose not to use that gas station. If the government decides to enact a law mandating installation of CCTV cameras in your living room, you can't refuse.

"He raised the suspicions of the FBI who investigated and found no crime. That's pretty much their entire job."

Statements like this evince a complete misunderstanding of the role of law enforcement in a democratic society.

The FBI's job is to respond to proper complaints of violations of the law, and to investigate where there are clear and articulable facts that lead them to believe a crime has occurred.

Their job is not to surveil the citizenry for signs of aberrant behavior.

"The real answer is the R&D costs are not worth it because Uranium is still extreamly cheap."

This answers why the market won't develop the technology on its own. But the government could still sponsor research as they did with uranium fission.

"The short answer is that there are many entrenched interests who are not keen on the idea..."

And this answers why the government would never fund it.

As an example, consider the Washington D.C. public school system, which spends more per capita than almost any other city in the nation, yet consistently scores among the lowest in all performance metrics. There is something wrong with the existing culture of American public education. Introducing more funding might temporarily alleviate some of the symptoms, but it cannot cure the underlying disease.

A $100 million dollar fund to found charter schools in the Newark area would most likely be more effective, and would certainly be more interesting.

It was just that British immigrants had the nasty habit of overthrowing the government in their new homes.