I was thinking cost/benefit over a broader spectrum.
At the airport, I think running my carry on bag through an X-ray machine is perfectly acceptable. I think having them check my photo id is perfectly acceptable. I'm ok with walking through a metal detector. I think those are pretty low cost barriers that keep some of the nastier stuff out.
I don't think that sucking up all our data, crippling encryption, and removing 4th amendment protections are worth the cost at all.
In other words, all the calls for increased surveillance and less encryption really seem like a smoke screen by an intelligence community that failed.
I'll disagree with this. I don't think it failed. I think they did exactly what they are capable of but the expectations of them are just unattainably high. The same goes for TSA, DHS, and pretty much every police department ever.
But, I think this is why it is very important to perform cost/benefit analysis on these types of things.
A few years back, I placed Netflix firmly in the niche category. When they announced they had inked a deal with Kevin Spacey for House of Cards, I was very skeptical, but it definitely piqued my interest. After watching the first season of House of Cards in two days, I was like, "This is the future." Now, I see Master of None, w/ Bob and David, Narcos, and all the other originals and I kind of panic because I will never have time to watch everything I want to watch. Netflix has changed my life.
This leads to my second point, which is that it hasn't changed my kids' lives AT ALL. They started out watching Dinosaur Train, Elmo, and now Puffin Rock (an original) on Netflix. When we are in a hotel room and they see a commercial Nick Jr or whatever, they are like, "What the F is this garbage? Put my show back on!" They just have no clue and neither does cable.
Guys, I just got a new party idea. I'm going to throw a Davis Wright Tremaine party. I'll go as Stuart Dunwoody. My costume will be a gimp suit and I'll be fucking people up, both literally and figuratively. Thoughts?
Depending on who you are, being non-responsive can be seen as a feature or a bug. That's "fine" or whatever when you are talking about requests for documents for news reporting or other not-as-time-sensitive stuff. (It isn't fine, but let's disregard that for the moment)
My main concern would be whether this is the same system they use for searching during actual, pressing investigations. It would be very disturbing if in the course of investigating something like the OKC bombing they missed connections and evidence because they were doing these same sorts of half-assed queries.
Heck, who knows - maybe that is a feature, not a bug, as well.
But in this specific case, I think the whole issue is that Google is saying that Hood and the MPAA were working in cahoots and Hood and the MPAA are saying, "No way, dude!!!" Meanwhile they are saying that the communication between an attorney and their client is privileged and shouldn't be disclosed. All to say, the reason they don't want it disclosed is the exact reason they are being sued by Google in the first place.
Basically, this sounds like a last ditch effort to stay the execution.