Just make an always-online and a never-online version, so you don't lose customers while not compromising the security of the online market.

I hated having to have a disc just to get streaming content... now I can have only what I want and effectively pay less for it.

I can almost kinda see competition helping scenarios like this as the poster appears to be indicating, but not in any model resembling 'competition' and/or 'free market' as it is now, as neither exist. Wherever government is weakened, regulations (i.e., the rules of the game) are obliterated (or otherwise rewritten BY the 'free market' (i.e., specific big-fish corporations)), and business takes on the mantle of fact-checking itself, what we see, instead of competition, is extinction. A handful of fish eat ALL the other fish and all of a sudden you have cartels or outright monopolies that result. In order for true competition to occur, the players on the field must be unable to determine the rules of the game, while the referee (i.e., government) has the power to enforce the rules, but makes no attempt to play on the field itself. As long as the two blend together, all you'll get is a new TSA that specializes in economic rape of the masses, as is occurring quite ubiquitously nigh on everywhere else the 'free market' has intruded. Profit, as a motive, is very powerful... but when people can fudge, they WILL fudge as that is easier than playing harder (i.e., competing.) So either the people (i.e., government) have to have enough power to kick cheaters entirely off the field or to 'tweak' the meaning of profit (perhaps through credits or subsidies or scenario-responsive tax rates) so that for-profit entities providing security services (a.k.a., police, fire, military, health, environment protection, food protection, etc) perceive success for their clients as more profitable than cutting corners.

I would agree if he were releasing info that endangered ongoing operations (troop movements, missile deployment sites, etc, in the midst of a battle and to the enemy), but when he's whistleblowing on the criminal actions of his superiors, he must be protected. Every agency at EVERY level must be routinely audited for corrupting, and with 54% of our taxpayer money going to feed this military machine in a time of nation crippling deficits, they deserve scrutiny most of all.

I do find myself wanting some kind of mobile perma-token that goes to each internet accessing individual. Hi, I am E341-AA0B-C3A9-5505-30FF, and my internet access account began on July 3, 2013! I am male, 27 years old, etc. My token knows that I exist, that only I belong to this token, that I am certifiably human, and maybe that I've demonstrated a preference for buying Anime from Amazon and invest heavily in Silver Mint. -- point being, I don't necessarily think such a token should really store sensitive information about identity, per se... but that it can prove that you are who you say you are when online in some verifiable and prohibitively difficult to steal kind of way (at least it terms of the minimalistic rewards such theft grants). When you read a review on an apartment or a product or a service... when someone trolls you on a forum... etc... you can know first that it's not a machine and second that that person will be accountable for any false information they give. I should think this would even be applicable to voting, taxation, etc. I just can't help getting past the notion that in a communicable universe where one can trust the content they encounter and people are liable for their actions, not only will there be less cybercrime, spamming, etc, but also less incentive to want to engage in them as well.

Run-on sentences notwithstanding

Probably ~not~ but I would argue that the university system isn't immune to monetary temptations either; I went to a state university system, came from a working class family that could not afford to help me out... though the compsci and physics programs were challenging and rewarding (and well respected), the financial aide department was apparently (for lack of any rational alternative probability) offended at a 'poor' boy coming to their school. They raked me over the coals, lied through their teeth, and set me up for a lot of unnecessary pain including myriad courses audited due to their shinanigans preventing me from being able to afford the textbooks! This may sound like whining, but compare this to my wealthy ex-girlfriend at the time who came from out of state (re: triple tuition costs) who, in spite of a much more shallow and far less lustrous academic background, got a free ride through school. To her credit, she maintained it well... I'm not blaming her. But the school played serious favorites with what their fiscal equations must have indicated that she was better odds in terms of alumni donations to the school. They rewarded her and punished me based on equations and assumptions, best as I can figure. Well, now she's working in a department store and I'm writing code that empowers a million plus people, and that school's behavior has taken on something of a self-fulfilling prophecy; they'll never get a donated cent out of me.

I wonder if part of that comes from mounting dissatisfaction with the world as it is. I look back at things like Star Trek, for example, and see generations of viewers who turn toward life with an optimistic energy... optimism is an overstrained resource in the world today, however, so I cannot help but wonder if this is, instead, compelling people to hide from reality in fantasy instead. (both ARE fantasy, frankly, and neither are necessarily optimistic or pessimistic, BUT, I do wonder nevertheless.)

Oh, come on... money is not the only resource by which one survives. In fact, it was never meant to have any meaning beyond measuring the value of resources and labor, period. That considered, resources on this planet ARE finite, and I find much more value being able to inhale my entertainment in digits rather than in paper. I can have a single metal and plastic kindle (which, btw, can be powered off a freakin' hand crank (as I did last night when the apartment complex was without power due to a failed upgrade by maintenance.)) replace 10s of thousands of paper items over the course of its useful lifetime. Me, I like to breath oxygen and have the luxury of, you know... EATING FOOD... things that I cannot take for granted in a world that is well beyond sustainable cultivation practices in most every regard. Define 'cost,' because going without a survivable future is too high a price to pay, at least if you ask me.

Let's cite the impact of producing less plastic items! I understand people worked there; still, people can be retrained (I suggest, to work in solar/wind manufacturing plants)... CD plastic, however, represents raped biodiversity; something we all rely on.

Sure, who wants their information sold? Who wants to be tracked? Problem is, things like cookies and recording contact information and so on is pretty critical to the operation of any site that attempts to be interactive with you as a human being. Without these, so much of the functionality people have come to expect would be either very expensive or entirely infeasible. This is why I donated to Diaspora. If you want the functionality AND the privacy, you MUST shoulder some of the expense and burden involved in making the network and the software work.

So they warn about releasing military|political data and our 'people' just complain about it and pick up the pieces... but now that they're going after corporate powers, they're under enormous DDoS fire, huh? I hope this is juicy data.

Urgh; this is a tough one. On the one hand, I want to make sure that the makers of said games make money enough on their products to keep producing MORE games... and, similarly, I wish people didn't have such a compunction to steal! On the other hand, though, if DRM gets in the way of playing a game, it's almost just as bad (for both the player and the maker simultaneously.)

Note the early appearance of an iPad concept in Demolition Man

I can't quite agree... federal government run by corporate special interest almost willfully turns things to crap since they'd rather be given the reigns to run them [at a profit] themselves. There are myriad periods of history where the gov did incredibly difficult things incredibly well... it's all about who is in the gov and what it takes to get elected. I think you have fair reason to be concerned, but are focused too much on the blunt object rather than on they who are wielding it.