Releases to use name and likeness go beyond profit; they also cover not-for-profit artistic ventures, like free photography exhibits. When it comes to individuals, it isn't just about profit - intangibles like reputation are considered part of an individual's assets, as much as financial assets. And that's as it should be, too. Reputation based on what a person truly has done, be it Bush or the local parish priest or any of us, is a repuation we've given or taken from ourselves. When something fictional is written about a person, be it a story or a lie, that person may consider it damage to their reputation, and has the right, legal, ethical, moral, to do so.

I'm not sure what the security or privacy of the internet have to do with the situation. But I do know there's a flaw in that last paragraph - it's not your right to write anything you choose about George Bush. There are some very strict and well-enforced restrictions on that, for his safety, whether or not what you wrote had intent behind it or not (as someone on LJ recently found out the hard way). And other public figures, while the restrictions on what can be written about them are neither so reaching nor well-enforced, have similar rights regarding what can (legally) and should (ethically) be said about them.