I cannot imagine a bigger waste of HR, IT, or managements time to go chasing around data regarding their employees web usage.
If you hired intelligent, effective management you wouldn't need to go policing your employees after the fact.
Instead of asking; How can we find out which of our employees isn't working and then make them pay, how about finding out which of our employees is no longer being challenged or effective in their job and how can we help them.
You aren't their parents you're their employer, it's your job help them succeed, and if you cannot then refill the position.

What are you people, stuck so deep in the forest you cannot see the trees?
The american justice system provides you with fair warning about incriminating yourself.
The British justice system threatens you into speaking with a vague warning that if you don't you wont be able to later.

Honesty versus underhanded double-speak, yeah I think the Americans got it right.
In Britain your citizen rights are protected by a royal mandate, which protects the institution and allows for the citizen to retain some independence.
In the US (recent freedom reductions notwithstanding) it is part of the formulation of the core values of the nation that citizen rights be protected.

If your argument is that for a lawyer there is slightly more wiggle room in the British method of dealing with self-incrimination, I cannot count that as a good thing.

It's no different then realizing your father was a complete asshole to your family as you were growing up, stating that fact, and then reformulating your household so as to not end up being viewed that way.
Calling an American a xenophobe essentially is like admitting to everything your child feels about you.
An asshole-ish statement after being called an asshole just proves their point.
Way to fall directly into a poorly made and obvious trap.

I'm using a homeless person as an example of an emotionally and possibly mentally crippled (Such as the gentleman in the court case) with minimal social/secular education.
The question I pose isn't rhetorical either. Since this falls exactly in line with what the accused did in this case. A mentally/emotionally broken man, burst into an open funeral parlor and made obscene statements and gestures.
This sort of thing happens in meat-space too. It's why we have doormen at fancy hotel entrances, or ushers at a wedding. To keep those with poor self-management skills out, or remove them when they become unruly.
If they become highly offensive or violent the police are called.

Unfortunately this is a little bit of a Honey-pot situation. Using the logic given above, you could effectively lure someone into making a stupid remark in an inappropriate forum, then beat them silly for it (and maybe with good moral cause) and then claim emotional excitement of some kind.
Or, such as in this case, sue them for 'trolling'.

The reality of this situation is, poor emotional and scholastic education created an individual who would step to the level required here, to make light of another's loss.

Take a lesson from 'The Little Prince' though, do not expect more of others then they are capable of giving. Or translated for this situation 'If you give an Ass-hat an opening...'
How many years would you give a homeless person for bursting into a funeral parlor and doing something heinous, such as acting out the death of the deceased?

Wow I'm glad someone said something. That was seriously irking me.
Why even use that example of his 'trolling' and then fail to provide the terminology of an item correctly so that a correlation could be made by the reader.

I figure A: The contributor expects everyone to know what they're talking about when it comes to Thomas the Tank Engine lore
or B: It's just a stinkin' random omission (wow an irritating one though)

LOL, so angry! Except you fail to make a single point in your comment.
I don't poop in the ground because I have a toilet. If you advertise you have a toilet but then require people to have a subscription to toilets monthly to use the toilet well then you're not offering a toilet at all are you?
WoW is online online because it is designed that way.
Racing games have time trials so you can compete against yourself.
Quake II had single player modes because of the state of internet connections and gaming in general.
This company decided to make a single-player offering into a stunted MMO, but still wants the single-player moniker attached.
'Shut up, nutsack.'
It's obvious I just wasted my typing on you, but others find intelligent debate meaningful to read, and enjoy the opinions and concerns of others.
Go read a book, child.

Actually this is a developing nation problem more than a developed nation problem. The decisions we make in our developed nations will assist in the direction the developing nations will choose for their products.
I believe ACTA is an excellent example of this. By requiring member nations to get on board with the over-bearing repressive style of patent, trademark, and copyright litigation and regulation we have effectively stunted their ability to produce.
By opening these developing nations up to possible reprisals from developed nation based multi-nationals you have threatened with the stick but not offered a carrot at all.
"This forum is, unfortunately, populated by so many of the same kind of person, the one that rallies against any form of DRM because they feel it violated their basic human rights."
I'm confused as to where this comment puts you? Are you stating you have no vigilance whatsoever when it comes to human rights? Or are you stating this doesn't fall under human rights and should be ignored? Since I have yet to see a comment besides yours mentioning human rights so far in this thread, your statement is even more confusing.
The people here are rallying against having their ability to enjoy their entertainment hampered by questionable business practices and possible collusion between businesses.

No they are offering a stunted hard to use product when the product can just as easily be offered and utilized without their stifling add-ons.
I believe that is the basis for copyright and trademark infringement according to economists the world over.
Although no one is owed a specifically tailored product to their needs, when a company releases a product that has the ability, with minor modification, to meet a greater majority of their consumers desires, that modification will occur and the knowledge of how to circumvent the limitations imposed by the above mentioned product developer will be disseminated among the rest of humanity.
'They stole our bits!' Is currently a motto that is destroying the US from the inside out. Get your shit together you brain-dead Americans, you're walling yourself in, and you already sold off all your abilities to self-sustain.

So you're advocating further complication to simply enjoy entertainment?
Please extract your head from your ass, it seems all the technology you've attached to it in order to simply enjoy life has made it hard for you to remove it from your posterior in order to see the cognitive dissonance you're spouting.

No, they chose to be interested in a piece of software.
I'm interested in refrigeration for my food. Why should I need an internet connection in order to store my food in a refrigerator?
All I need is electricity, if the entity making the fridge decides I need a totally extraneous, and non-related subscription to some other service to store my food, guess who's fridge I wont buy?

Why offer a single player element at all?

You sir are either blind or enjoy pointing out the problem while ignoring it.
Your mentality is fairly disgusting as well.
"The fact you have no clue how to do it only underscores your ignorance and the general lack of education of the public."

So it's an education problem according to your own words. However two sentences later you remove all doubt as to your the depth of your insight and state this joke;
"The reality is, first and foremost, the biggest problem the majority of poor people have is themselves."

So what is, oh wise man? You seem educated yet you belittle those that are not. Although you know the value of education enough yourself to state that is the source of the downtrodden ills, you then state some ethereal statement the gist of which is; 'they only have themselves to blame'

Your foolish government is currently disemboweling itself for dead ideologies and all I hear from you mental-case Americans is greed, greed, greed. You used to take care of your own, what happened?

To be the unwilling pawn in a legal battle between the 'The side of good' and 'The side of bad', is indicative of the bible teachings in general. The idea that you are but a token to prove the good side right or the bad side right is a blatant control based teaching.
Essentially your comment stated the old testament was meant to crush the pride of the Israelites so as to make them more willing to commit horrible acts of murderous barbarism required by the leaders of Israel (genocide in the area of the 'Promised Land', internal and external purges). They idea being; "Hey you're a sinner anyway you should commit these horrid acts of violence against your own people and others." Do I have to give examples of internal purges or killings the Israelites themselves endured let alone the pain they brought as an occupational force in the 'Promised Land'?

People utilize Old Testament verses because they are still connected to a work they base their lives on. I am surprised to hear such an argument from your comment. The fact that all religious texts are interpreted by the extremists and the moderates to mean completely different things should give you an idea of it's actual worth. They are good reads and that's all.

How are we to judge a belief system if we do not judge by the entire population that serves it? To state we should only look at the passive moderates and ignore the extreme interpretations of the same belief system is folly. The sheep and the goats are a simplistic idea of segregation not a lesson. If your belief system engenders hatred, segregation, and violence it's broken and being an apologist for it simply proves it's shattered state.

Educated on what? The one time a member of a religious entity mentioned in the bible was not involved in the murder of an innocent?
Counterpoint; Remember the time the Israelites went around killing people in their tents for sex out of wedlock? I believe there was a double impalement in the act of coitus specifically ordered by god. (Num. 25:6-9)
The New Testament does not somehow whitewash the disgusting grave of the Old Testament.