1 year ago we had almost the same article on slashdot, without calling it "near-future sci-fi". http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/08/20/202243/A-Video-Ad-In-a-Paper-Magazine

Visit http://www.google.com/ncr (no country redirect) and google will no longer use your geolocation to determine what pages you want to see.
Cookies required

You seem to have missed some of the darker shades of the GiTS future. Do you remember that they didn't even own their own body, because only the government and/or high profile criminals could finance such hardware?
So only the very rich could enhance their body any way they like, creating a world where a persons value is tied even stronger to their wealth

+

= ?

First Google hit:
http://www.wfu.edu/~palmitar/Law&Valuation/Papers/1999/Leggett-pinto.html

Are you Irish? http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/20/1227210/Irish-ISP-To-Block-Access-To-Pirate-Bay

I merely added "after the event" to exclude ongoing investigations and operations. Although I'm not a big fan of wars, I can understand how some general wouldn't like the position of his snipers broadcasted in realtime.

However I don't think the public should be kept in the dark about these operations indefinitely, therefore I can't agree with your examples, except maybe the UFOs.

Publishing information that is classified is certainly unlawful, but it's not the same as "taking the law into your own hand". They don't judge the parties involved, but merely allow the public to come to their own conclusions.

Of course some people can and probably are misusing sites as wikileaks to further their own agendas, by only posting documents that support their side of the story. But is in this case the damage done by the information that the "lesser knowledgeable individuals" received or by the information that was withheld?

I'm not saying that every information should be available to everyone at any time, but I do believe(because it's hard to prove) that more damage has been done by missing or false information then by exposure of information that should not have been available to the public.

BTW: What would be a good example for information that should been kept secret (indefinitely/ longer then one month after the event)?

Your trust in our leaders almost scares me. Upon which base would these leaders be elected, if they have the power to hide their underlings and their own actions from the public eye?

Would you prefer that none learns of human rights abuses, executions or torture and therefore everyone believes your country is "good", or that the world knows and your country is forces to become "better" in order to improve its public image?

It doesn't have to end up as a constant magnetization for someone to be able to recover the data. A predictable pattern would suffice.
Actually not even overwriting the disc with random data might be enough to ensure that noone can recover the data. Dedicated forensic experts can read overwritten data, by distinguishing between a 0 -> 1 and a 1 -> 1 magnetization (Simplified example).

Which might explain why the original report is titled "Linux Breaks 1% on the Client"

You're quoting the first sentence and conclude:

Even though the second sentence says:

It is hard to believe that this was a honest mistake.