One nitpick: It wasn't "No Taxation Without Representation"; those taxes were long gone.
But then the tax on tea was dropped too. Which made legally imported tea cheaper. Which in turn was putting smugglers of Dutch tea - like John Hancock - out of business. Which is why the tea was thrown in the harbor rather than "liberated."
The Boston Tea Party was a protest against *lower* taxes. One of the things that's always confused me about the modern Tea Party.
The bulk trials do the reverse. Someone commits vandalism. Police cordon off the area and arrest everyone in it. Instead of diffusing risk, they diffuse innocence. It doesn't matter that few if any of those charged were actually guilty. A lack of evidence connecting an individual to a crime no longer matters. Reasonable doubt no longer applies. Someone committed a crime, so everyone is guilty.
Corporations are people. And now, individuals are not.
We're familiar with this in Canada. At the 2010 G20 summit in Toronto, "230 rioters" would mean "one or more vandals plus all the innocent bystanders in the area when police cordoned it off." It was the same in Washington.
At the 2007 North American leaders summit in Montebello, Quebec, it was undercover police carrying rocks and trying to provoke a riot. They were identified because they were still wearing very distinctive police footwear.
Granted, it was only causing problems for foreign students. But that was only after stopping everyone and checking to see if they were non-citizens.
There have also been stories posted to Techdirt about people stopped near the southern border. Not while crossing; just driving on the highway NEAR the border. With the border patrol objecting to being filmed. Those stops are also routine.
Early on, iTunes did the same. There was a case where an American moved to Canada. iTunes saw his new Canadian credit card, said "Not licensed there!", and wiped his purchased music. There are plenty of other cases.
The legal system has a double standard where files are considered property when corporations own them, but not when citizens own them. Or worse than that: Duplicating a file - leaving the original in place - is theft. Jail-breaking an X-Box can put you in jail because it *might* be used for theft. But theft by a corporation - remotely deleting or disabling your purchased content - is allowed with the flimsiest of reasoning.
Small wonder that there's growing contempt for that part of the legal system.
Even with encryption, the ad agencies will still know who you are and what banking site you were just communicating with. And the type of transaction based on the URL.
"Ad agency" meaning "anyone willing to pay for that information."
Scammers already send "please verify your information" emails to random people on behalf of random banks. Getting such vague emails from banks they don't deal with warns people about the practice. But imagine if the scammers could target their emails *knowing* who is dealing with what bank and when.
Other personal data is important too. Again, even if pages are encrypted, whoever is buying the data will see the URLs you visited. Say, on the pages on a medical site dealing with specific and embarrassing medical conditions, teen pregnancy, etc.
Imagine a political campaign being able to purchase the browsing history for everyone on the opposing campaign. Even if they didn't publish that information, it would give them a heads up on embarrassing situations.
Being able to detect whether someone is walking around in the adjacent room - and nothing more - is an extremely small value of spying. People can easily do that without microwaves.
Now limit it to only working in the kitchen. And only while the oven is operating, maybe 0.01% of the day.
It's like last week's media hype that one could bridge an air gap to extract data from another computer using only drive lights. Yes, you could make a working demonstration, but that doesn't make it a remotely credible threat.
Every generation has a similar scare. Go back 40 years and the panic was about books like The Anarchist Cookbook making the rounds.
Of course any 12 year old wanting to make their own explosives wouldn't need it. They'd do far better just looking in the encyclopedia and other books in their school library. I'm missing a few fingertips to prove it.