You clearly haven't been paying attention if you think that the government, along with its handmaidens and handlers (y'know, the NSA, the CIA, NYC cops, and the 1% of the 1%) doesn't consider the American and the world's citizenry - especially an informed citizenry, the enemy.
Actually, that only makes a lot of sense if your only source of information is mainstream US media (and anything else that one's NSA/CIA/Military overlords allow one to absorb.
Quoting Heidi Larson, senior lecturer at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in a commentary published by The Guardian, "There must have been a better, more ethical, way. This choice of action has jeopardised people's trust in vaccines, and in particular the polio-eradication campaign, now so close to success – broken trust that will take years to restore."
But then again, expecting government agencies and for politicians to actually bear the costs of their decisions. Nope, that's for little people. In this case, little brown people...
Since the copyright industries and their minions are completely of embarrassment, especially when making claims, a better options is to name and shame the newspaper, TV reports, etc, that repeat the baseless claims made by the copyright industry. Here's a template you all could use:
Really, I don't know why I still read newspapers. But I do (or used to). I'm beginning to feel as if I'm a modern-day Diogenes, in a Quixotic quest for some considered, cogent, and honest reporting.
But yesterday's article about (fill in latest lies) was the last straw. Your reporter and editors feel that their jobs are to quote, verbatim, industry news releases. None of your fact-checkers verified, and no one provided any historical analysis of all the other times in the recent past that the (BCC, MPAA, RIAA, whichever) issued a fact-free 'report'.
If your reporters and editors don't think that it's vitally important, in a modern, open, and vibrant democracy, that news organizations check their sources and check their information and report their findings, then I may as well just get my news for free from wild-eyed, paranoid bloggers living in their parents' basement.
At least, in their case, I get what I pay for. In your case, I pay you and you spit in my face by repeating these copyright industry lies.
Sooo..the chief benefit of having a home security system with cameras...
..would protection from the law enforcement personnel and the, ahem, justice system?
I see a whole advertising campaign. (Shouts out to the secretary in the other office.) "Mabel, can you see if that guy, what's his name..Randall Adams, is available? ... No? Ok, what about those cops up in Canada?"
Me, what I'm dying to see is a comment thread where five or six commentators, all of whom are called 'Anonymous Coward', get into very heated, name-calling, passive-aggressive, and fact-free argument thread and then the whole thread collapses into a smoky pile of ash when one of the many 'Cowards' realizes he was unwittingly arguing with himself.
I'd pay money to see that, I really would.
/I'd pay even more money if, instead of measles infecting Upper Manhattan, the measles were actually infecting Upper Class Manhattan instead.