"there seems to be little anyone can do to prevent the device from being tracked and/or used as a listening device" Sure there is: Put the phone inside a Faraday Cage, eg; a wire mesh pouch, or for an ad hoc solution, inside a microwave oven, or metal box.
I'm probably being paranoid, but I can't help but wonder if a spook agency or criminal organisation (but I repeat myself) are behind Superfish. I'll be interested to see if Lenovo sue them; I certainly would if I were in their shoes, considering how expensive this is going to be for them in terms of mitigation & reputational costs.
"But the Tabasco Corp also profits from his work." So what? He's making tens of millions of dollars a year, so why would he care? It amazes me that so many people think that success alone isn't enough, as though it doesn't count unless you're bankrupting your competitors as well. It's a big market, there's enough room for everyone to do good business.
"Being for something with qualifications means you're not for it at all." Oh please. As much as I love this site, I despise those kinds of black & white, absolutist arguments. Translate this particular one into any other context, & it's obvious how childish it is, for example, saying: "I'm for sex, but against rape" is obvious common sense, & doesn't mean that I'm lying when I say I'm in favour of sex. Only spoiled children & Libertardians (but I repeat myself) think that absolute Freedom of Speech is an unalloyed good.
The way this works is that the cops get tipoffs from a "confidential informant" that a crime is likely to be committed at some particular time & place, so they know to stake it out & catch the Bad Guys in the act. My understanding is that that's completely legit, Constitutionally speaking, because they're not using the tipoff as actual evidence, just as a tool to help their investigation. Where it gets legally dicey is when they get their "tipoffs" via means that violate the 4th Amendment, but conceal the Constitutional violation by masking their data as coming from a "confidential informant, which is admissible, rather than from a source that isn't. That is the crux of this particular debate.
Other people whose income exceeds 250k will probably donate the entire excess to tax-deductible non-profits, something where they at least get social prestige, rather than passing it all to the government.
You say this like it'd be a bad thing. Sounds more like a bonus to me.
Dunno about the USA, but Australia would be a much nicer place if every whiny asshole 'earning' over $250K left. We got rid of Murdoch that way, for example. Too bad Gina Rhinehart hasn't followed his lead.
Sure, because what the parents OBVIOUSLY should've done was leave their kid on the ground & sprint to the courthouse. I mean, imagine how much bigger a payout they would be up for if their kid had died? Fools!