Perhaps you can learn from my mistake. Recently, I parked my car in Washington, D.C., and made sure to stash my trusty (and pricey) GPS device in a hidden place. I did not, however, stash the plastic dashboard mount, which sat there through the night shining like a beacon for any would-be gadget thief. When I returned to my car the next morning, I had a front seat full of shattered glass. Both my GPS and my car mount were gone.

I may have been foolish. But I'm not alone.

By many accounts, gadget theft from cars is on the rise. In fact, the most recent FBI statistics indicate that while the rate of auto thefts around the country has remained flat in recent years, gadget thefts from vehicles rose about 30 percent from 2000 to 2004. And why not? Our cars have become rolling offices. My cigarette lighter now rivals the back of my stereo in its spaghetti-like appearance. By my recent count, I have in my car on a typical day better than 10 gadgets clogging up my cup holders:

*A cell phone, with car charger.
*A satellite radio, its antenna, and its power adapter.
*My iPod, its car charger and its FM modulator.
*A power inverter, in case I need to use my laptop or recharge my digital camera.
*And, once upon a time, I had a GPS device and its mount.

When you consider that I have about $2,000 worth of music on my iPod, a car gadget thief could strike gold by rummaging through my seats. And given all those wires, it's pretty easy for any casual window shopper to see that my car doubles as an electronics store for criminals.

Gadget thieves do just this kind of shopping, says Fred Corrubia, chief of police in Paramus, N.J. Situated just outside New York City, Paramus is home to one of America's densest collections of shopping malls. And earlier this year, the city was hit by a rash of GPS thefts at mall parking lots -- 43 units stolen during three weeks in January alone. The problem became so severe that Corrubia set up a GPS theft task force and engineered a sting to catch gadget thieves.

"It's a crime of convenience," Corrubia says. "It takes nothing to remove them. ... We were getting killed by this."

In many cases, the chief says, gadget criminals don't even have to break car windows. On a recent parking lot tour, he found a half-dozen car doors left unlocked, with gadgets sitting in plain view.

"We saw a car with two booster seats in the back, doors unlocked," he says. "Obviously that woman had something else on her mind."

Corrubia caught an alleged crook in his sting. The suspect told Paramus investigators that he was getting about $100 apiece for stolen GPS units. Most of them end up in discount electronics stores in Manhattan 10 miles to the east, where they are often sold as new, he said. Sophisticated criminals get their hands on contraband packaging and manuals, twin them with stolen gadgets, and sell them for 50 percent off the new price. A tidy profit for both thief and fence.

The Paramus suspect told police he had little trouble stealing four or five units in an hour of parking lot prowling.

"He said, 'This is what I do for a living,' " Corrubia says.

Tech to the rescue?

The GPS industry is reacting to the problem.

Garmin, manufacturer of several popular GPS units, recently introduced a piece of software called Garmin Lock that prevents criminals from using the devices after they are stolen. Consumers must enter a four-digit code before using the device; those who forget their PIN can bring the gadget back to a Garmin store, and it will be reset. Otherwise, the unit is useless.

Of course, Garmin Lock won't reassemble your shattered car window. But such antitheft devices will slowly drain the market for stolen devices. In the long run, that will help.

For now, GPS and gadget users need to beef up their sense of security. It's not enough to stash the gadget into your glove box when you park. You've got to hide all the hints for criminals, too -- all the car chargers and power adaptors that act like gadget breadcrumbs. And I can tell you from experience, never leave a dashboard mount in plain view.

"All you're doing is telling that guy there is probably a GPS unit in there," says Garmin's Ted Gartner. And even if you've taken the GPS with you, the mount on the dashboard might lead to a smashed window and a disappointed thief.

Also worth noting, stolen gadgets from cars are not usually covered by auto insurance, says Jean Salvatore of the Insurance Industry of America. Those with homeowner or renter insurance could file a claim through those policies. Those without are generally out of luck.

Gadgets carry valuable cargo

Finally, theft of a piece of electronics from your car might cost you more than the mere price of replacement. Many of these gadgets are chock full of personal information about you. Telephones have your friends' phone numbers; PocketPCs have your schedule. And that's not to mention laptop computers, which when stolen occasionally contain millions of Social Security numbers.

That's why Corrubia, who must pay exorbitant auto insurance rates like everyone else who lives near a major U.S. city, pleads with Paramus residents to take better care of their gadgets every chance he gets.

"We are all paying for this with higher premiums," he says. By keeping gadgets out of sight, "you can save us all a tremendous amount of money."

You've heard, "If I told you, I'd have to kill you." Facing a lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the federal government and AT&T recently tried a slight variation on that defense: "If we try this case, a terrorist might kill you." It didn't work, at least for now.

The U.S. antiterrorism electronic surveillance program is so secret that there's no way to hold a fair trial evaluating its legality, the government argued in its May 13 motion to dismiss the case. But on Thursday, Judge Vaughn Walker rejected that argument and allowed the lawsuit against alleged warrantless wiretapping and telephone call record analysis to continue. Walker also rejected the argument made by AT&T that the company has immunity from such lawsuits because it was following orders from the federal government to assist in the collection of surveillance data.

While there are dozens of cases involving the U.S. government's secretive antiterrorism telephone monitoring activities, this appears to be the first significant court ruling involing the controversial program.

In the complex case, the Electronic Frontier Foundation sued AT&T for allegedly participating in government monitoring of U.S. citizens' phone calls. Thursday's ruling was equally complicated -- the judge cited precedents dating all the way back to Aaron Burr's treason case. Walker set aside several key issues because so much of the program remains shrouded in secrecy. But with a host of qualifications that the case might be dismissed at some future point, he rejected arguments made by both AT&T and the federal government that the case should be immediately thrown out.

Still the arguments raised by the government and AT&T in defense of the program -- and the judge's response to those arguments -- offer an intriguing glimpse of the legal battle ahead.

The U.S. wiretapping and telephone records analysis programs were disclosed by the New York Times and USA Today in news stories during the past eight months.

"The court's opinion makes clear that this is a case where the court just refused to duck," said EFF attorney Robert Fram. "It refused to dismiss the case at the outset because (that would require) sacrificing liberty with no enhancement of security."

AT&T did not immediately return phone calls requesting comment on the ruling.

In its motion to dismiss, the government essentially argued that so much of the antiterrorism data collection program is a privileged state secret that the case itself could not be argued -- and AT&T could not defend itself -- without jeopardizing national security. Because classified evidence could not be considered, that "effectively deprives AT&T of information necessary to raise valid defenses," the government said.

But Walker rejected that reasoning because so much of the program has already made it into the public sphere. Following the initial New York Times report last year, both President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales have confirmed parts of the program, dealing with monitoring of phone calls between alleged overseas terrorists and individuals in the U.S. That prevents the government from claiming state secret privilege, Walker said.

"It might appear that none of the subject matter in this litigation could be considered a secret given that the alleged surveillance programs have been so widely reported," he wrote. Elsewhere, he indicated that "it is important to note that even the state secrets privilege has its limits."

Walker also found fault with AT&T's basic defense. Federal law does allow citizens to sue telecommunications companies that improperly share details about their phone activities -- even if those details are shared with the government, he said. Telecom firms are immune from such lawsuits only if they receive a government "certification" authorizing them to conduct electronic surveillance.

But EFF argued that AT&T gathered information for the government -- and even allowed National Security Agency technicians to install special hardware at a San Francisco office -- on the basis of informal oral agreements.

The judge ruled that EFF might be able to prove at trial that no official certification had been received by AT&T. Further, since public statements from other telecommunications companies indicate they declined government requests for similar cooperation, AT&T would have trouble arguing that it was compelled to surrender the information. And finally, in perhaps the ruling's most bold statement, Walker said AT&T cannot hide behind what I might call "The Feds Made Me Do It" defense.

"The very action in question has previously been held unlawful," Walker wrote. "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."

As that last sentence indicates, Walker did not find that the widely reported domestic dragnet actually existed; neither AT&T nor the federal government has confirmed the existence of the programs. The judge's statement merely indicates that if the program did exist, EFF lawyers could argue at trial that AT&T should have known such a program violated several U.S. federal laws, including the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

"The government was asking for the judiciary to stay out and not enforce the laws Congress has written," said EFF staff attorney Kurt Opsahl. "If taken to the extreme it would allow the executive to do ... what it will without any judicial scrutiny. That is something antithetical to the separation of powers."

Though the case will go forward, it could hit a roadblock at any time. While Walker ruled the potential compromise of state secrets did not preclude the judicial branch from entertaining the case, a state secret defense may prevent most evidence from being admitted. The judge clearly signaled he would tread carefully in the discovery phase.

"The court also must take special care to honor the extraordinary security concerns raised by the government here," he said. He's so concerned about the issue that he suggested appointing a special adviser with high security clearance to advise the court on procedural issues.

With each piece of evidence subject to such procedural challenges, the EFF has its hands full going forward. The "If I let you see this evidence, a terrorist might kill you" argument will be hard to pierce.

Internet shoppers know the drill. You buy something online and think you've cleverly avoided paying sales tax, but sometimes you lose the gamble and have to pay anyway, depending on a cryptic set of tax laws full of legal terms like "nexus." Ultimately, you trust the Web site to charge the proper taxes, because what else can you do?

For nearly half a million Dell computer purchasers in Washington state, that trust was apparently misplaced. From 1999 to 2005, Dell overcharged 470,000 consumers nearly $24 million in sales tax, and now, the company must refund the money under terms of a lawsuit settlement reached in May.

The case doesn't only impact Washington residents, however. Similar cases are pending in five other states around the country, including California and Massachusetts. The lead counsel in the cases, Rick Ellis, thinks ultimately the price tag will be over $100 million and involve several million consumers around the nation.

The case is a cautionary tale on two fronts: First, consumers should carefully review the sales tax they're being charged by retailers both online and offline. And they should beware bundled deals from retailers. A service contract or extended warranty that might appear to be free may actually be costing you a lot of money.

On to the details:

In 1999, Dell decided to collect sales tax on service contracts for computers it sold in every state, allegedly in contradition of some state laws. Tax wasn't charged on the computer, just the service contract. As an example: A $600 system might come with a $100 service contract bundled into the deal. A consumer in a state where the sales tax was 8 percent would be charged $8 in taxes on the purchase --since in Dell's determination only $100 of the total price was subject to sales tax.

But here's where the nuances of tax law -- and language -- kick in. We might use words like "service contract," "extended warranty" or "maintenance contract" interchangeably, but to the Washington state Department of Revenue they mean very different things. An extended warranty is simply an insurance policy that consumers pay. Because in most cases it is never used, Washington state law and case law at the time considered warranties untaxable. On the other hand, a maintenance contract, which involves a company representative regularly making on-site visits for check-ups, was deemed a service, and thus taxable.

Dell treated the extended warranties like maintenance contracts, and uniformly charged sales tax for them -- even though about half the states mirrored the Washington state tax-free model. In 2003, attorney Ellis spotted the discrepancy, and filed suit in Massachusetts. Colleagues also sued in five other states. So far, the Washington case is the only one to reach class-action status, and the only case that's been settled. A similar case in Maine was dismissed.

Big money is involved, and some buyers will be getting big refunds. The University of Washington, for example, will be getting a check for $398,000, according to J.D. Stahl, the attorney who filed the Washington case. The average consumer will be getting a much smaller check, perhaps $10 or $20 for each computer purchased.

Dell, for its part, says it was an honest mistake. It did not keep the money; it dutifully passed it along to Washington state. So, in effect, the Washington state government will be paying the refunds, while Dell foots the bill for the legal fees.

But Ellis didn't believe Dell was making an honest error, which is why he filed his case under Massachusetts' deceptive trade practices law.

Dell was saving itself millions of dollars each year by charging the excess sales tax, Ellis said. Here's how he says it worked: Generally, when companies repair computer hardware during a home visit, they have to pay a "use tax" for the replacement parts carried into the state. But if consumers had already paid sales tax for the computer service contract, Dell took the position it did not have to pay the use tax on the replacement parts. In effect, the company was charging consumers a sales tax up front to avoid having to pay a use tax at the other end, Ellis argues.

Dell would not comment on that theory. Spokesman Jess Blackman said his firm was simply obeying the law.

"We thought we had to collect sales tax, but somebody filed suit," he said. "We reached a settlement. And we are reimbursing the consumers for the amount of sales tax collected."

Given the complications of sales tax collection, it's easy to see how there might be confusion. But something else about this story bothers me. In many cases, consumers were unaware that the warranties on their computers had a dollar value, and in many cases, a very significant dollar value.

Dell, like many computer companies, often sells "bundles" on its Web site. These are package deals that roll together a bunch of desirable items like LCD monitors or printers, all for one low price. Bundles usually appear to be a pretty good deal, but often, they aren't. They usually include low-quality printers, or overpriced accessories, for example. So consumers who piece together their own deals usually end up ahead.

But in Dell's case, something more confusing was going on. The invoice sent to consumers listed a single price for the package deal, including the warranty. Other items were itemized on the invoice, but the there was no dollar amount listed for them, said Ellis. Except for the most industrious consumers, who hunted around and found a price list, there was little chance Dell buyers knew what they were paying for their warranty/service contract. The only hint was a box on the invoice that said "taxable amount."

"We don't make it a separate line item but there is a cost associated with that," Dell's Blackman said. In other words, to Dell, service contracts were a free tack-on, but their price was separated out by the company for accounting purposes.

Such practices are at a bare minimum confusing for consumers. I purchased a Dell computer three years ago and had no idea I paid for a service contract. I also had no idea there was a possibility of declining the contract and getting a better price. Doing so may not have saved me money, but it's never a good situation when consumers are confused about what they're paying for. I would have gone to my grave not knowing I had paid for a warranty were it not for this lawsuit.

If you are a Washington state resident who bought a Dell in the past seven years, lucky you. You likely have a small refund coming your way. You can read more about this by clicking here.

But consumers elsewhere should take this story to heart and remember to examine any purchase carefully for hidden costs associated with extended warranties or inaccurate sales tax charges. Extended warranties are almost always a bad deal, so consumers should usually decline them. Deciphering the correct sales tax is much harder. Retailers use special software to calculate taxes. Consumers with any concerns have to call their state's department of revenue for a straight answer.

When you do, you might not like the answer. When you buy an item online, it may be sales-tax free but it's not tax free. Consumers who buy items from Web sites in other states are obligated to pay a use tax for bringing an item into their state. And if you live in the same state where a Web site does business and has a regular presence (that's nexus), you will be charged sales tax when you make the purchase.

One postscript to the Washington state story: Last year, the state legislature passed a law making the collection of sales tax mandatory on extended warranties, largely in response to the Dell lawsuit. So even though the practice was not legal from 1999-2005, it is legal today. You didn't expect a state government to let go of a revenue stream that easily, did you?

Have you ever been overcharged on sales tax? Sound off below.

We got such response from our initial story about violent videos on the Web that we decided to investigate further. As part of a joint project with NBC News, we sent a camera crew to Alexandria, La., to interview the man many know as the star of an Internet video called "How to Blow Up Your Hand." And we talked to the man who paid him $250 for the rights to that video. I hope you'll find that in the capable hands of NBC producer Andrew Gross and editor Mike Covert, we've created an in-depth look at the topic.

Charlie Dyess, the man who had a dry ice bomb blow up in his hand on camera, was surprisingly philosophical about violent online videos when we spoke. On one hand, he compares the guilty pleasure some experience through watching others trip, fall, bleed, and burn, to violent exhibitions during Roman times. "People like to see violence," he told us, and said there was little he or anyone else could do to stop children from doing dumb things on camera. But on the other hand, he said he's concerned that children may imitate his video, and thinks some are pushing the limits too far in search of Internet video fame.

Keith Richman, the CEO of video site Break.com -- and the man who paid Charlie his $250 prize -- was adamant that really violent videos aren't popular. "People don't want to see that," he said, repeatedly. More than anything, people who come to his site want to laugh, or see something unexpected. But videos that are too gruesome just won't draw much traffic, he said. And he believes market forces will eventually drive videos like that out of the market.

But child safety expert Parry Aftab, who runs WiredSafety.org, thinks there is cause for concern. She told us she's certain children are engaging in incredibly risky behavior, and they're doing it to play to the camera. She's seen a long list of ugly home videos online: kids threatening each other, kids setting each other on fire, bloody fights, under aged pornography. She's concerned that some video Web sites are making money off this kind of material, instead of working harder to keep it off their servers.

As you'll see, we had no trouble finding all manner of bloody and dangerous home movies shared on Web sites all over the Internet. As we discussed in this space earlier, there's plenty of blame to go around -- parents, the kids, and the Web site owners all deserve blame for this gruesome material that's being published for millions of people to see. We'll have to keep arguing about what kind of material, if any, should be banned from Internet sites. But to argue about it, people have to know about it.

Tens of millions of children had MySpace.com pages -- many filled with overly provocative images and overly revealing personal information -- before most parents had even heard of the site. That same pattern should not be repeated with video sites. Whatever side of the issue you come down on, it's imperative that parents know exactly what their kids are doing with those snazzy, inexpensive digital cameras they now carry everywhere in their pockets.

So we offer you this video story today, thanks to the hard work of many people at NBC News. Some of the images are hard to see, but we felt it important to include a flavor of these violent videos so more people can understand what's happening online. Please click on the play button above to watch the video, and then let us know what you think below.

Ten laptop computers were stolen from a team of securities regulators conducting an investigation last February, but the computers contained scant amounts of personal information, according to the National Association of Securities Dealers.

There is irony in this story. The regulators were conducting what's known as a "cause" exam, an investigation into possible misconduct by two member firms. The only consumers whose identities were put at risk by the theft were the subjects of the investigation, according to the NASD.

The incident underscores the jittery environment surrounding laptop computers and private information in light of several high-profile hardware thefts in recent months.

The NASD laptop theft was first disclosed this week in an industry newsletter operated by M. Rogan LaBier.

The break-in occurred in the regulator's Boca Raton, Fla., office on Feb. 25, the NASD confirmed. Two months later, the agency warned 73 securities dealers who were questioned during personal interviews and supplied their Social Security numbers during questioning. Transcripts of those interviews were stored on the stolen laptops, according to the NASD.

About 1,000 consumers' names and investment account numbers also were on the laptops, but none of those accounts was active, said NASD spokesman Herb Perone. The accounts were located at two firms that are now out of business, he said.

Several hundred additional consumers' personal information may have been on the computers as part of data sampling done by auditors to investigate potential abuses, but the data did not include Social Security numbers or other information required to commit fraud or identity theft, Perone said.

Perone would not disclose which firms were being investigated during the incident. Consumers in the list were not notified because they were not placed at risk, he said.

The NASD has altered some practices in light of the theft. Interview subjects are no longer identified by Social Security numbers, and data on all laptops in NASD district offices is encrypted, Perone said.

Congress is considering a host of proposals to deal with similar data loss incidents. In most versions of the law, only data losses that create a significant likelihood of harm to consumers would be required to be disclosed, and companies involved in the data leak would decide on the risk.

There have been "happy ending" data loss incidents lately, such as the Veterans Administration laptop that was lost and now is found.

But as privacy news continues to dominate the headlines, companies and agencies involved in data leaks or stolen laptop incidents would be better served disclosing as much information as possible, as quickly as possible. Precise details, such as how many account numbers were taken or how many computers disappeared, are always the best antidote to rumors and half-truths.

We have a few more details on what happened to the nation's most famous runaway laptop computer during those mysterious two months it was missing, courtesy of NBC's Pete Williams. We're talking about the computer and hard drive that were stolen from a Department of Veterans Affairs employee in May, an incident that made headlines because the hardware contained private information on 26.5 million veterans and current GIs. Last week, VA chief Jim Nicholson announced in dramatic fashion that the prodigal computer had been found, but details about the return were sparse.

NBC's Williams has been able to fill in some of the blanks after talking to law enforcement officials investigating the incident.

Both the laptop and hard drive ended up for sale at a black market just north of Washington D.C., near a subway station outside the Beltway near Wheaton. We're talking about the kind of market that is literally run out of the back of a truck, one official said. Fortunately, a buyer purchased both components at this black market, keeping the missing hardware together.

The male buyer, who has not been publicly identified, later spotted fliers posted at a nearby supermarket seeking the return of the equipment. After matching the serial numbers on the flier with those on the equipment, the buyer decided to turn in the equipment. No doubt, a posted $50,000 reward helped encourage that decision.

He had a friend in the U.S. Park Police who brokered the exchange with the FBI, Williams was told.

At that point, the FBI ran forensics tests on the equipment and concluded the sensitive data – such as veterans' Social Security numbers -- had not been accessed. (Read more details about those tests here). Knowing more about the secret life of the disappearing hardware should make veterans a little more comfortable that their personal information was not compromised during the incident.

But not all questions have been answered yet. The obvious missing puzzle piece is this: How did the hardware get from the VA employee's home in Aspen Hill, Md., to the back of a truck in Wheaton, about 4 miles away? And what happened during the trip?