No, he's the only one who really gets it. The article was written by someone who was broken by the interrogation process and now is acting the way the government wants everyone to act.
No, it's not, because Comcast and other ISPs are what's called common carriers in the United States. This means that they are not liable for the content of their customers, such as 4chan.
If you think this is just a legal distinction and not a moral one, consider the company that rents a van to a person who later turns out to be a bank robber. They aren't liable for helping the bank robber get away, because they rent vans to anyone who comes along.
It's baffling that I'm being downvoted so much. Apparently most hackernews users are devoted fans of 4chan who use that site to get their child pornography fix.
Hopefully Anonymous will use their new capability to destroy morally bankrupt companies, such as the financial companies that refused to handle funds for Wikileaks.
Interesting that you use website as a synonym for company. The web site of this company is nothing more than a front end for interfacing with the public for marketing and customer service. Presumably, the company also has their actual VPN structure which they use to deliver their service to their customers, offices (optional), bank accounts, etc.
Most people want to believe their brand is as special as Coke or Apple, but they usually aren't. Most people will not know what a Verisign logo on a web site means in terms of actual security measures, they'll only see it as a label saying "hey we claim to be secure!" And those who are familiar with Verisign will associate the logo with their misdeeds, and wonder why they should do business with a site that does business with such a company.
That's because you're not having a conversation, you're filling in fields in a form. You're lucky they let you use email instead of redirecting you to a web form that more rigidly enforces the method of interaction with them (which needs to die even more).
It's so easy to incorporate it should always be done. I assume when someone starts working with that kind of money and has knowledgeable lawyers advising them that they'll be told to do that.
Even if it were changed to that, the story wouldn't end with "I couldn't buy food, my macbook pro got repossessed, and I went to federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison."
If you do get sued and your business collapses you can always start another one.
(That is how much merit this discussion has.)