In all seriousness, this is a perfect example of why (most) source code should be open-source. Closed-source software depends on "you can't see inside this black box"/"security by obscurity" measures that are vulnerable because they cannot be made more secure by the community.
The ISPs rightly refuse... if this is what they're blocking this week, what will it be next and where will they be taking orders from?
One (or more) of the 'agencies' of the U.S.A.? Interpol? Local law enforcement? The PTA?
The real issue here is that the "authoritative" (emphasis on the quotation marks) status of Wikipedia as THE place to go for information in the sense that it will in time be generally accurate. If Britannica is successful, Wikipedia's status will be diluted. Case in point: probably 90% or more of Slashdot users use Google for general web searches, while going to Wikipedia for encyclopaedia research, IMDB for movie research, Sourceforge for open source product research, etc.... We know better than to put up with a MSN or Yahoo query (unless the Google search came up unsatisfactory). If the Wikipedia results are unsatisfactory, we research and add to the article, making it more complete and authoritative. Are we going to feel compelled to verify that Britannica is correct as well? (keep in mind that Britannica would never have allowed free access, let alone editable content if it weren't for the success of Wikipedia). Do we really care that MSN and Yahoo perform poorly for most queries other than perhaps looking up the latest Katy Perry video or editorial content? This, of course, comes with a massive theoretical cost to freedom by concentrating the power with a small number of authorities (Google and Wikipedia, for example) but with the benefit of optimizing accuracy and reducing time required to "authoritate" the web.
> It does. Identify thyself with the police at any time? Central voter register? Let me get to those two points
As those official documents are quite important, forging those, getting those in wrong names or otherwise messing with them is taken very, very seriously by law enforcement. You don't mess around with your driving license just to get some beer before you should (which wouldn't be a problem anyway, once you get a driving license you're also considered old enough to get alcohol), that would send you quite quickly to jail. This improves the general trust in those documents.
>In the states most jurisdictions don't allow legal alcohol purchases and consumption until the age of 21 (!). Here in Canada, it's 19 most everywhere except Quebec, where it's 18. Which is still high, if you ask me. It also allows for and encourages _casual_ abuse of government-issued ID without thinking of the consequences. This gets people in the frame of mind for abuse at an early age, and also brings about a cottage industry dealing in these kinds of fake IDs (some of which are of excellent quality - no "McLovin"). Abuse is somewhat rampant. Because it's used for something so trivial as drinking age, it presents a huge societal disconnect. I think you make some very good points - that is, we are generally sheep looking for a place to eat and rest, not realizing the wolves are licking their chops choosing their next dinner.