Sure it is. Not at the same rate, but given two spacetime points far enough away from each other, the distance between them can increase much more than the speed of light.

The thing about expansion is that it will appear "faster" the farther apart two points are. On the proverbial balloon you blow up, two marks that are close together will move much slower apart than two marks that are far from each other. And this is a very very big balloon. The ant called Andromeda crawls towards the ant called Milky Way faster than the expansion happens, because the expansion is very small at such a short distance. But an ant that's much farther away won't ever be able to reach us, because the distances involved means a larger distance increase too. And an ant that's far enough away won't even be able to send a light signal to us, because the distance expands more than the speed of light, relative to us and it. The edge of the observable universe simply means that anything beyond it recedes faster than c. But no movement is involved, just a distance increase.

If it weren't, it would be detectible. The cosmic background radiation, for example, would be doppler shifted and have larger temperature variations than what we observe. We'd see more older galaxies far away and more younger galaxies close to us, depending on how the speed of light had varied. That's not what we observe, though.
Also, gravity would behave differently, and stars would have different colors and spectral lines than what we observe, depending on what the speed of light were where/when the stars exist(ed). We'd have small stars turning into black holes, and giant stars much bigger than what is possible with c being what we think it is.
Again, we don't observe that.

Oh, absolutely. Usually by bouncing light back and forth between mirrors far apart. And we still do - we've just have realized that's it's not really the speed of light we're really measuring, but the distance/time relation.
Because time itself is variable. A second here is not the same as a second at a GPS satellite. But the speed of light in vacuum is the same.

Anyhow, that's our current point of view, because it makes it easiest to do calculations and make observations. We could use a point of view where time was a constant, and have a very variable light speed instead. It's just as mathematically legal as a point of view, but it would complicate how we have to perceive things. Planck's constant would be variable, and atoms smaller or larger depending on location. We'd have to shift our view of distant galaxies to being very small, close, and low energy, but having a very slow speed of light compared to our speed of light. A headache, even if mathematically valid.
So Einstein took the simpler point of view, and let distance and time be variables with a fixed relation.

The speed of light cannot change, because it's the definition of speed, not a measured speed. When we say that the speed of light in vacuum is 299 792 458 m/s, what we're defining is the meter and the second relation. If you "slowed" the speed of light, distances would shorten and time would expand and c would still be 299 792 458 m/s. I.e. you would not notice anything. Only an observer outside our universe could possibly detect it, because inside our universe, we exist relative to c.

Governments spying on each other is one thing, but USA goes a lot further than that, including industrial espionage, spying on civilians en masse, strong-arming and assassinations.
Apart from Russia and Israel, I can't think of any other country that disregards other peoples to this extent.

What's wrong is that in the US system, it's possible to treat someone against their will and then bill them for it.

Someone just recently went on vacation from Europe to Florida, and a combination of sleep apnea and jet lag caused him to fall sound asleep in the hotel lobby before even getting to his room. They rushed him to an ER against his half-awake protests, and he ended up with an *enormous* bill. That's just not right.

Reconstructionist President Mackenzie of the Simon Morden books isn't far-fetched anymore, alas. We're well on the way there.

The blatant disregard for the sovereignty and principles of other nations is part of why USA is so generally despised and feared, even by our allies. But walk over people enough, and they will raise up.

I don't think the concern is lost lives, but either losing a source of intelligence or losing face.

Unfortunately, I fear that there are also a supply of quite willing and rich guinea pigs who want lesser problems fixed, or bespoke babies. Unless regulated, research tends to follow the money.

The problem with us saying "this far, and no farther" reads to many as an invitation to go this far immediately, because the competitors will, even if original plans were less ambitious.

The only way I think we can buy a lease on responsible genetics is by having an oversight board that is controlled by neither big industry nor the local government.
Perhaps something like a UN ethics committee that does not accept appointments by governments, but selects its own members from scientific communities, with the UN councils only holding veto rights.

Obviously, one would use the Genome Editor.

IGMC...

I fear you are right, and that some diseases would benefit by our preventing other diseases. Given that our focus is usually on the "worst" diseases, on average the competition opens to more benign diseases, but there will be exceptions. And some relatively benign diseases that seems easy to cure might become a target for a genetic "quick fix" that might, unbeknownst to us, open up for other diseases.

The interaction between different diseases and genetic "flaws" is not well understood, but we know there are interactions. Like, for example, how sickle cell anemia gives increased resistance against malaria. There are likely a lot of genetic conditions that cause ailments that were introduced because they also gives an advantage, which at an early point was a net win for some individuals. We don't have the full picture yet, so I would say there is a risk, and especially if treating relatively "benign" conditions.

Au contraire - on government web sites where the content is public, the content should not be encrypted. That goes against all reason.

The only reason I see for this requirement is to make it easier to see who has accessed information where. With http and caching proxy servers it becomes a heck of a lot harder to trace users (which is also why Google hates http so much).

By all means, encrypt anything that is confidential or secret, but on public servers, nothing else.