"Wow. Never thought I'd see the techdirt community defending someone who traffics in child porn."
That's because, as I said above, you've lost the ability to think rationally about anything CP-related. Nothing in the article defends CP in any way, shape or form. Feel free to point out specifics if you think I'm wrong.
It is vital to vigorously protect the rights and laws put in place to protect the people from governmental or law enforcement overreach. They were put there for good reason, usually as a result of decades or centuries of suffering by ALL people, not just people you happen to despise. If you choose to ignore these protections for bad people, you effectively give permission to ignore them for everyone else too.
You sound very much like your understandable hatred of child porn has fried your brain to the point of not understanding the terrible precedent you'd like the courts to set. Don't worry, your affliction is sadly common.
"You won't even consider a valid issue, and instead dismiss it out of hand."
Probably because most of the concerns you raise should not be as big a deal as you make out and quite frankly are worth it. Some cops need to be watched, and so do plenty of the citizens cops interact with. All these "problems" need to be dealt with intelligently instead of being used as excuses.
It's not a good point at all, because the people did not have the power to remove a monarchy once they realized they had a problem. You only have to look at the likes of IBM, Microsoft, BlackBerry, Yahoo, MySpace, etc to see that companies in a dominant market position have no guarantee of holding that position any longer than their customers want.
"I appreciate the point the article is trying to make, but I think it's a bit unfair to paint any opposition as strictly trying to keep a captive market."
It's up to optometrists to convince the paying public that it's worth paying more to get the benefits you describe. That's called competition. Running to the government for a law change that kills off your competitors instead of competing on merit is the very definition of a captive market.
Thank you Captain Obvious for explaining what everybody already knew. The point is not whether the information exists, it's whether law enforcement should be able to get it without a warrant.
Why don't you put your efforts into explaining something useful, like why the public shouldn't expect this basic legal check procedure to be used before accessing info that most people would prefer to be kept private.
Because it's very common boilerplate in lots of widely used services. If there was a serious concern with this particular service's TOS, there would be a lot of well known problems with all the other services that say the same thing. But there isn't, so it's not freakout worthy.