"Anyhoo, when more than one AG comes after you, it's just possible that you're engaged in fairly obvious fiddling."
Nice appeal to authority there. Obviously there's no reason to believe that if one AG seeks to improve their chances of career advancement by grandstanding on a stupid issue like this, that others would jump on the bandwagon for the same ulterior motives. No, AG's clearly have moral superiority when in numbers...
"So Mike, are you saying that whistleblowers should just not even try to report whatever wrongs they perceive through proper channels first?"
Did you even read the link that was in the text you quoted? Clearly not, or you'd realise how ignorant your comment sounds. Why would you choose a path that will have the exact opposite outcome that you want?
"...trying to draw out a sophisticated debate here..."
Can you point to which parts of your contribution you consider to be "sophisticated"? Because I'm seeing a staggering lack of sophistication in all the people 'criticizing' this post and the commentors who support it.
If think the sheer volume of flagged comments proves AG Wright's point. Someone clearly wants this discussion shut down or discredited.
"I don't live my life based on the statistical probability of the method of my death!!! Do you?"
I do and so do you. You make decisions like that every day without even thinking about it. If you step in front of an approaching truck you have a high statistical probability of dying, so you decide to wait 'til it's passed and there's a safe gap in traffic. You probably make multiple such decisions daily.
The chances of dying in a terrorist attack play practically no part in my daily decision making, because there is practically zero chance of it happening.
"You don't mind being under surveillance when you are the beach by life guards, because you know they are there to watch over you and protect you."
This ridiculous comparison proves you're either not smart enough or not honest enough to play a meaningful part in this discussion.
"Pandora is just trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians."
Pandora are asking to pay the same rates as terrestrial radio stations, an action you claim is them "trying to get wealthy on the backs of musicians". So are you implying that terrestrial radio stations are already getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Because that's the only logical conclusion to make from your claim. So where's your rant about terrestrial radio stations getting wealthy on the backs of musicians? Should I look on The Trichordist?
"Everyone has SOME slight obligation to prevent crime, and tacitly admit that crime is going on."
Okay then, answer me this (I know you won't). Which of these two scenarios best meets your requirement to "prevent crime"?
1. Google caves to AG's grandstanding and delists websites allegedly engaged in "illegal activity". AG claims success! Meanwhile said illegal activity continues unabated, but is a tiny bit harder to find on the internet. Or...
2. AG's leave Google alone and do their damn job, using proper law enforcement tools to locate "illegal activity" (easy to find, look on Google!) and stop it from actually occurring.
I genuinely believe you're not smart enough to see the correct answer here.
What they are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata — the details about phone calls, without the actual voice — isn't a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying:
They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about.
They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret.
They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed.
They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion.
They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about.
Sorry, your phone records—oops, "so-called metadata"—can reveal a lot more about the content of your calls than the government is implying.