You are correct that Donald Trump is a horrible candidate. He has proven himself repeatedly to have misogynistic and racists tendencies, wracked with scandal.
Hillary is clearly superior to Trump. She has experience and is respectable. But her lack of in depth knowledge of technology and her tax-and-spend plans are unappealing.
Johnson on the other hand is an experienced and highly trustworthy candidate. He is not perfect and I personally disagree with certain parts of his platform. But I think he is by far the best candidate.
Either way, voters are faced with choosing between the devil they sort of know and the devil other devils have been distancing themselves from for several weeks. In both cases, we're going to end up with a president who doesn't have the technical knowledge to deal with today's realities.
Fortunately, those aren't the only choices. While hardly a computer expert, Gary Johnson does display a level head and a willingness to listen to his advisors.
As between, Trump and Clinton, Clinton's approach, while too extreme, is still far more reasonable than Trump's.
I would hope, however, that the question comes down to delineating what qualifies as embarrassing content and what doesn't, rather than relying on any individual's interpretation.
No, it should come down to there simply being no right to sue on these facts (at least under American Law. I know little of Austrian law). These were pictures taken by the poster/publisher of the pictures in a place where the photography was entitled to take photographs. The photographs have not been falsified so there can be no defamation.
There are a few other privacy related claims that could come up, but they require more than the pictures being subjectively embarrassing. They would require something like showing the subject in a "false light" or implying that the subject endorses a particular product or something else which makes these more than a case of innocent childhood pictures the subject now finds mildly embarrassing.
I wrote a law review article dealing with the DMCA. While my core point was a technical one about when Willful Blindness should apply, I spent a fair bit of time talking about how important the safe harbors are to allowing the internet to develop. This is something which is well established by numerous commentators and scholars in both the legal and economic fields.
I never thought of your #2, but you are entirely right.
I will add another reason, one closely related to Chatam's but not quite the same. You will never face the choice with certainty. The real world is too unpredictable for that. Instead, you will face something more like the choice of increasing the chance of killing 1 person by decreasing the chance of killing 2 or vice versa. In that case, choose the one that has the best chance of having no fatalities at all. But, as Chatham points out, even getting to that probabilistic point.
Since you didn't mention Gary Johnson's position, he openly supports the TPP. This is one of the ares where I respectfully disagree with him. But, he has at least said that there are parts he does not like, he just thinks the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
Its a funny shirt, but fortunately (at least regarding the upcoming American election) we have more than two choices. Personally, I support Gary Johnson and think he is a genuinely good candidate instead of the lesser of the evils. Dr. Jill Stein is also running.
I disagree with your assessment regarding self driving cars. Even if we insist on maintaining driver responsibility, we could have mostly self driving cars with requirements that a driver override be available and that drivers remain alert (technology could even help enforce that). I also suspect that as self-driving technology develops we will become more willing to at least lessen the need for driver responsibility.
I think your assessment of flying cars on the other hand is spot on for the foreseeable future and appreciate having an experienced pilot lay out the reasons.
While some internet of things items have proven themselves useful (my wife loves the Ring, an IOT doorbell, and even I see value in it), most of them are overhyped. I have yet to see a compelling (or even really any) use case for an internet connected fridge or tea kettle.
I do see a use case for an inernet connected thermostat, but the price for a Nest was far too high to justify its fairly small value.
There is a place for IOT, but I think (at least for the near future) it is much smaller than many companies want it to be.
As I mentioned in a comment in the linked ArsTechnica piece, whether this violates the Fifth Amendment is not a simple or clear question. I have written a law review article directly on this topic for I/S which is available here
The very short version is that while the Fifth Amendment is clearly implicated, the Fifth Amendment has several nuances and exceptions. One of those exceptions is the Foregone Conclusion Doctrine. While not quite a clear cut case, this case seems to fit within that. Law Enforcement has evidence that these are his drives, that he is capable of decrypting them, and they have some idea of what at least some of the contents they will find are. Courts have upheld the use of the foregone conclusion doctrine several times, and I argue in my law review article that it is proper to use that doctrine so long as they can actually meet its requirements.
I'm afraid it is not that simple. First, the artists probably do not have the authority to give those rights. Depending on their contracts and licenses, it is more likely that the labels have the legal authority grant the rights for others to make those works.
Second, even if the artists could and did give him the right to create these derivative works, answering the DMCA notice is not the simplest thing in the world and could increase his chance of being sued (or at least increase his perceived chance of getting sued).
To be nitpicky, I think you mean "public disclosure of private facts". But, while related and the same facts may give rise to at least reasonable allegations of both, that is slightly different.
Public disclosure is also a violation of privacy, but it has a few key differences. For one thing, a "false light" claim has to actually put someone in a false light. It must imply something about the person which is not true. One of the famous cases involved publishing someone's picture next to an article about someone else that stated the other person was pregnant and other facts. The article was not about the woman pictured and did not mention her by name, but by attaching her picture next to it someone could easily have believed it was her and drawn false conclusions. Public disclosure does not have any requirement that even the implications be false.
It is important to remember that the details of false light vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction quite a bit.
However, I suspect that defamation is better here than false light. For one thing, in most places, false light is viewed more as an invasion of privacy than anything else. You often cannot put a public figure(think celebrity, but slightly broader) in a false light in the legal sense.
For another thing, it seems that in order to create the false context for his words they did publish false information. That false information may not have been defamatory in and of itself, but it was vital to the harmful change in context. For all practical purposes, their information was false and there are alleged actual damages rather humiliation or unwanted exposure alone, meaning defamation fits quite well.
Yes, I think the statement that companies should never review their own products is a bit overblown. I have no problem at all with employee's reviewing their company's products so long as the relationship is clearly disclosed.
Here though, it was not disclosed (whether the employees had good reason to not disclose or not is another topic). That is a problem.