This Internet Provider Pledges to Put Your Privacy First. Always.

It's a shame that the government is incapable of not overstepping their authority and scaring people into taking these measures. If they simply operated within the law and got lawful warrants based on probable cause to go after the bad guys, none of this would be necessary.

Unfortunately, when the government decides that they can supersede both the law of the land and the Constitution, citizens must do what they can to thwart them.

Bravo!!!!

This dream will be crush before it gets out of the gates.

First by creating government regulations that will bury this renegade.

Yep. I would imagine that they can pull a provision out of the patriot act to stop him in his tracks.

or,.........is there a possible tax that can be imposed.

I've often thought you Yanks are lucky to have organisations like the ACLU who are prepared to defend your rights.

Sometimes.

ACLU can cross the line of not knowing the difference between rights and entitlements.

or Constitutional rights from made up civil rights..................they routinely both blur, and cross the lines.

yah, what he said.

Oh, my. Every time I read about some entity (and it isn't just the governmental agencies) trying to access semi-private communications of large numbers of people just by saying it is necessary (by whose definition?) I run the gamut of emotions from angry to depressed to curiosity.

I hope Merrill succeeds. And I do hope there is legal contention. Americans need to see whether it really is government BY and FOR the people by how cases such as this would potentially be get decided. Court cases like this would be help determine that.

As an aside, one can feel lament over the limited ability to sue the government. Because one thing that could have been brought to court, as unconstitutional, a long, long time ago is the deterioration of the Sixth Amendment -- especially the part about a "fair, and SPEEDY trial..." A very common way for big entities to start any legal proceedings against a smaller one, is the time delay like the one mentioned in the article. Six years for a case to be brought to court!? That's speedy?? There are many other cases that have taken longer. Some people die before their case ever gets a hearing. The stress alone could kill one or severely damage one's health. Money and time put larger entities at a very distinct advantage vs. smaller one. (Note that in Strunk v. United States, that the defendant -- a corporation, for instance -- is the one protected from delays in having a case heard. And most likely, is the one who would create these delays in the first place as a tactic to it "die on the vine.")

Count me in as one who thinks it isn't being radical to rethink the wording of the Constitution, et. al. (And adding or altering ideas, too.) I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think the complex mess all "this" has turned in to would have been a disappointment to all who hammered out the basics of the Constitution. They tried to keep it as simple and basic as possible. That does lead to potential problems when trying to apply the ideals set forth there to the many varieties of human experience. But did it really have to get to the sordid mess we have now? Are we "A Nation of Sheep?" (Note the publication date of April 1961.)

Lifetime appointment of any government official flies in the face of representative government and democracy by the mechanism of ballots. (Supreme Court judges, for instance. ) I think there should be a provision in the Constitution, whereby any ruling by the Supreme Court could be subjected the supreme will of the people, via a nationwide proposition or referendum. It might even make for good reality TV. It could be called, "Ruling With the Stars," or "So You Think You Can Judge?"

Cynical, yes. But there needs to be some remedy for the craziness we all see happen every day and think, "How much more absurd can this get?"

Stare Decisis? Revisiting the history of law(s) with the goal of rewording or reworking how they are written, to take into the account all the rulings that had to be made, (and how many would be judged absurd, by both a long backward and forward view) would be a step in the right direction for keeping things from getting out of hand.

How many citizens have ever read "1984?" And would they connect the dots with today's world? (How could they not??) And if they did, by law, there is little they could do about it. (So many laws have been cleverly crafted to allow immunity and lack of accountability, as well as allow for "custom" behavior that often circumvents the touted purpose of the law.) That is the truly scary and depressing part.

The Constitution was made simple and easy to understand for a reason. It was written for the people, not the Government. A government of the people, for the people, is pretty easy to understand. None of the messes that we're in can be attributed to the Constitution...................all of them can be attributed to the government finding ways around it.

You're sure a fountain of information.

We do have a way for the government to hear the people. It wouldn't even cost much. The same technology that allows people to vote on idiocy like dancing with the stars, who's the best singer, etc. could easily be utilized to let the government know what we think, on everything they do....................................they are not interested.

It hurts to say that, but I fear it's the truth.

An interesting follow-up:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57413511-281/privacy-protective-isp-raises-over-$43000-in-donations-in-one-day/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title