etha

Hardly. Google could simply ask the children to fax in signed permission statements from their parents, as websites that actually make an effort to support child users do. Neopets had this figured out 15 years ago. Google chooses not to do that despite having the resources, and they are responsible for the consequences of that decision.

Most people aren't worried about being secure from the CIA, we're worried about being secure from random criminals at the airport or the cafe. If the CIA wants you, they can just kidnap you and lock you away anyway.

Actually, the lesson is that people don't WANT a "solution".

It does happen to be a positive interpretation, but there's no reason to think that's why it was chosen, since it's also the simplest explanation.

How to dismantle a tyrannical regime if you have the support of an omnipresent computer system they trust with absolutely everything.

Do you always follow the suggested resolution 100%?

What users? If Geocities had users to piss off, they wouldn't have needed to shit it down.

Your government wants them to have that option. Why should MS listen to you and not your government?

There's no "sky" in "skype" but we still call it skype because that's its name.

Or maybe we should accept that security ultimately doesn't matter.

But how much of that is due to nearly two decades of experience and how much is due to having kids?

What is wrong with those scenarios? It sounds like you are proposing that instead of using this information, people should ignore it and make bad decisions.

The point is that it's not as private as you think it is.

Conquest? Isn't it Pestilence?