And even if it is a "hate group", hate speech is deemed political speech as far as the first amendment goes. And all political speech is protected by the first amendment.

So hate away, you anti-CCTV haters.

Of course, the above-mentioned police captain might instead call it seditious speech. No first amendment protection for that.

If only there were an amendment against drumming up charges.

Maybe they're planning the world record for longest downtime.

(Of course, it may very well be more secure, especially if your home locale is a repressive regime with monitoring of electronic communications. In this case, the merits of TOR shine.)

Note the first comment from the link, though:

TOR is only more secure if the exit node it happens to use is more trustworthy than not using TOR at all. This may not be the case.

"That's Ron Wyden (D-OR), who I am quite proud to say is my Senator! He does lots of good stuff."

Actually, I have reason to believe that Joe Widen is the hybrid clone of Joe Biden and Ron Wyden.

I'm confused: was it a "scary, new step" or a "scary new step"?

How about a "scary new, step"?

Or a "scary, new, step"?

"I hadn't even realized they were on the run from the law."

And here I thought they'd been kidnapped. Nice headline, boingboing!

Next will they show us how to read Salon without a cookie infestation and mandatory ad click-throughs just to read an entire article?

I suppose I've been impressed by less...

@jim.cowling: when the police are involved, constitutional rights apply; signs don't revoke constutional rights (though i admit that failure to ignore tham might constitute probable cause -- for police, not rent-a-cops).

@kgodfrey: right, though keep in mind that the worst such agreements can do is lead to, e.g., costco revoking your membership.

cone. of. silence.

I hear Econo-Save also made the list.

As my last follow-up (seriously) in light of what I just said: I would rescind my apology, stand up for my first amendment rights, and dare them to refile charges.

Or, in other words, no fucking apology ought to be required for the charges to be dropped.

More breaking news: the Supreme Court of the United States requests that its binding precedent in a more or less analogous case be taken into account (see Cohen v. California).

Seriously, though: the legality of this issue was settled 27 years ago.

(In other breaking news: some podunk town in PA declares SCOTUS irrelevant).