Thank goodnes. The case was heard back in August, after a judge denied AT&T’s motion to dismiss.

Violations of our privacy by private companies are as dangerous as those by big government; keep your eyes open.

Important Links

• The EFF’s information page on the case
• Stop the Spying!

Or a computer!? That’s a pretty enclosed space, and pretty much the only thing these cans of air get used on.

Is the chemical (difluoroethane) really so dangerous? The LD-50 is rather difficult to find.

Intentional direct exposure to this chemical can cause freezing of airway soft tissue, oxygen displacement, or sensitization of myocardium. Human data also indicate that 1,1-difluoroethane is irritating to the eyes, nose, and throat. A case of severe oral mucosal frostbite injury from intentional abuse of 1,1-difluoroethane has been reported in the literature.⁴ This acute toxicity information is much more relevant to characterizing human hazards than a rat LD-50 value. (source)

Am I missing something here? I am confident in my ability to avoid frostbite (that liquid is COLD), but if the acute toxicity is so severe, why is it used as a propellant for a product used almost exclusively on electronics and in enclosed spaces?

My brain cells are very dear to me. Does anyone out there use a better (safer) canned-air propellant?

You probably shouldn’t watch this if you love Mickey Mouse or Palestinians.

References: