This reminds me of HeathKit catalogs, issues of "Popular Electronics", and the advertising in the back of old Scientific Americans back in the 70s!

Rats. I couldn't be first to point out it's a carnivorous Pacman.

This is picture is really creepy.

The Washington Post seemed most aggrieved that the snooping was done for salacious purposes. No where in the report did I see anything about snooping-for-hire (unlike what has happened with telephone records.) Does that mean that there was no snooping-for-hire? Or that the Washington Post wasn't very thorough about investigating this? Or that the data is so dull that it isn't interesting for people who pay?

About the security-tag/watch list that had been underused, but is now being used to protect elected officials and other high mucky mucks. Do those high mucky mucks include CEOs? Can some less elevated person get their records put on the "watch list"?

I think the proper response is to make the data public. Purge the social security numbers.

Alternately, do the same thing that the Feds have done with our credit scores -- give everyone one free look a year and charge them to correct the data. A way to raise revenue for the government that doesn't bring up the dread word "Taxes".

It's a stupidity tax, plain and simple.

Has anyone else noticed Comcast doing something similar? They tried to move the public access channels out of the basic cable channel range and onto the digital service. They're pushing hard to move people to digital service.

Who is watching TV? My kids have pretty much stopped. Video games and the internet are more interesting, more interactive, and more important to their social sphere. I'm about ready to ditch Comcast for AT&T DSL.

Is it too much to hope that in the long term, the less the TV and movie companies can charge will result in better written stuff? Probably.