She's also targeting a particular audience which is, according to Jake:
Minor correction: The [i]Telegraph[/i] is not a tabloid in the original sense of the word; they still sell physical copies in broadsheet format, and would regard doing anything else as decidedly improper. (They and their target demographic probably think any idea thought up after about 1965 is highly improper, come to that.)
Subtle reminder: You can tear her twitter account apart all you want. Make every valid point in the book. Hell, win the argument on the internet even.
And her target demographic will never even hear that there was a discussion.
"We should take the concerns of law enforcement..."
We should take them seriously, though. Because at this point in time, those concerns tell us the direction we probably shouldn't go as a country if we don't want to end up as a cautionary tale in the history books that will be written in the next 25-100 years.
"Teens are teens. They are out having sex, having fun, preparing for college and life, and taking advantage of all their technological resources to help the above."
You're forgetting: the de-facto "On The Internet/Made use of technology" modifier takes the behavior out of the realm of adolescence and pushes it straight into the "Unambiguously Evil" section of law.
The 'lethal weapons' clause, 5.1, could be fixed easily enough simply by striking out 'lethal', such that it prohibits any drone mounted weapons, rather that just lethal ones. If someone wants to play around with weaponized drones they can join the army, otherwise they can do without.
In a world where Congress has redefined pizza to be a vegetable (in, what, 2011?), I have to imagine it would be fairly easy to redefine certain "non-lethal weapons" - say, pepper spray as an "aerosol-based anti-psychotic medication with pacifying qualities" or similar. Of course, many medications have negative side effects, but as long as the label is properly formatted, FDA should be fine with it.
I can hear the smooth, deep-voiced voice over in the commercial now:
"Imagine a world where drones aren't weaponized - they've been re-purposed and converted into unmanned aerial medical dispensaries..."
Or a Special Forces team raiding the premises? Doesn't matter which team (even an ad-hoc team with personnel from all the different units) goes in: they're all trained to shoot their target(s) dead, no questions asked.
Wow. You're really equating a special ops teams capabilities to a missile platform? Do you really have so little respect for US soldiers?
A soldier with a rifle is capable of determining who their target is and shooting them. They're also - at least in theory - able to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, and will not generally kill indiscriminately (or, at least, the special forces guys I've known wouldn't). If they go into a building and determine its filled with nuns and orphans, they can make an intelligent decision and, for example, not execute the orphans. Doesn't mean they always make the "right" decision, but at least they have the capability to do so.
A missile platform's targeting capability is only as granular as its blast radius.
Fraudulent use and possession of identifying information about an individual is unambiguously illegal in the United States
Federal Statute creating a general ban on possession of personally identifiable information (PII) in this context, please?
This is by all accounts a non-US hosting company (Ukraine is called out) and there's nothing to indicate a locality for the person publishing the website so there are likely jurisdictional issues here.
Past that, nowhere in the actual letter was PII referenced. It was certainly alluded to. But the lawyers reference "Private, personal, information".
To your other point about providing information? The website in its current form checks for the presence of a user-provided email address in the dataset, and returns a yes/no along with an explanation of why presence in in the database isn't an automatic indicator of being an active user.