> A political decision to stop sabotaging technological solutions would be a good starting point.

In America, we have had those, and it hasn't helped. We have a First Amendment and a Second Amendment, and yet we have campaign-finance restrictions and gun control.

Political decisions simply don't stand. It's terribly sad.

Interesting perspective. I think the majority of the rest of the world is in awe that those two specific restrictions (such as they are today) are so inadequate at protecting anybody (from the rich and crazy people with guns, respectively).

The Bill of Rights was never intended to protect citizens from each other, the intent was very clearly to protect citizens and states against the federal government. Even with this limited scope, political pressures have overcome those two amendments (and most of the others). The parent is very right to point out that it is hard to restrain the majority, even with the constitution (and/or law) on your side.

I don't think it's sad, politics are supposed to change. Obviously you can be sad at specific changes, but the idea that political decisions in general can change is a good thing.

So we went from a time when tracking or reading your communications (mail) was unconstitutional to the present, where the government can track you, listen in on you, and record all of your (electronic) communications 'just in case' they might want to check what you've been doing. Doesn't leave me inspired with optimism.

I'm only responding to "Political decisions simply don't stand. It's terribly sad." I'm sure we can all think of many examples of good political changes. In fact, I think most people would agree that good political changes vastly outnumber bad ones. Blaming current problems on the entire nature of politics seems a little overly broad. We would not be better off if we froze all politics forever in whatever your favorite year was.