This is a fair question. In my two posts on the HN thread last month, I wasn't defending the proposal on the merits; instead, I made a narrow point that the hea

This is a fair question. In my two posts on the HN thread last month, I wasn't defending the proposal on the merits; instead, I made a narrow point that the headline was unsupported by the August 2014 source document and should be changed. That is still the case. Others, I recall, went further and can speak for themselves. (Put another way, it's possible to have misleading headlines about even wildly unconstitutional proposals extruded by Washington officialdom! Best to be painstakingly accurate in our criticisms.) I did note that "the more interesting section (to me) on page 340, which is the fact that warrants could authorize 'remote access to search electronic storage and seize or copy electronically stored information' via the Internet." And it looks like, from the linked National Journal article, this is what Google is alarmed by. I've talked a few times with the Google lawyer quoted in the news article, and suspect he would not make bold claims without good reason. But I haven't read Google's submission myself -- http://recent.io/ http://recent.io/ is keeping me too busy right now. That's why I submitted only the linked article. :)