A federal judge ruled that the NSA's collection of phone records is lawful.

This directly contradicts another judge who ruled it was an Orwellian violation of 4th amendment. Either or both could be overruled on appeal.

The reference to the September 2001 attacks is mistaken, because we know for a fact that phone surveillance would not have been necessary for preventing the attacks if the US government had been paying attention. The US government had various warnings, including the flight student that wasn't interested in learning to land the plane, but ignored them. Dubya had told the FBI to reduce the resources into counterterrorism.

It is also irrelevant as a reason. If the state were allowed to monitor everything and search everything, it could prevent many kinds of crimes, as well as many kinds of dissent and whistleblowing, but that doesn't invalidate the 4th amendment.

New Zealand offers an example of regulating prostitution that really does make prostitutes safer.

It seems to have worked out well there, based on anecdotes and official reports.

Meanwhile, the US keeps prostitution illegal and maintains a stigma against prostitutes, with predictable results.

SD cards (and other memories) have processors whose programs can be changed.

If it is normal to change that software — for instance, if users are sometimes given upgrades — then it is an injustice that these programs are proprietary. However, even if it is not normal to change that software, this is a dangerous vulnerability to viruses, the NSA, etc.

TED is based on the assumption that all we need is a clever new idea.

Resisting and reversing the privatization of water systems.