When I dropped all my cable and switched to antenna and Netflix, my TV watching habits changed.
It's no longer imperative for me to have immediate access to every thing that I could possibly see. If I don't have access to a sporting event or a TV show, I simply don't see them. Maybe I talk to my family or take the dogs for a walk. Maybe I wait for the movie or show to come out on Netflix in 6 months. It's the behavior change that makes it work, not any attempt to make the experience the same as before.
Changing your viewing habits is like changing your diet. If you are choosing the chocolate-chip-cookie-dough diet bar instead of an apple, your head isn't in the right space to make it work.
Then they'll just find/create/manipulate/overextend/ignore a different law. Impunity isn't picky when it comes to post-facto justification or umbrella prosecution, any law that can be stretched to fit will suffice.
This presumes that the goal of the current security developments is actually to reduce the effects of terrorism as stated. If it turned out that the real goal was to increase power and perpetuate revenue, we might find that there is little appetite among those in control for a rational approach to saving more lives. Perhaps the current strategy is serving their goals already.
Of course you can cut the cable entirely, if you are in a sufficiently large metropolitan area and don't need to watch sports. I have over 20 channels via antenna, and none of my streaming is from the Canadian cartels. In Burlington, I have DSL from TekSavvy on a dry loop, so Bell's involvement exists at an infrastructure level but is entirely incidental. If you are not addicted to a) the usual pap that passes for entertainment or b) the notion that you have to watch first-run everything, you can be quite comfortably entertained without indenturing yourself to the BigCos.
I'm a bit confused by your response in that it draws meaning from my statement that wasn't expressed or intended and then takes affront and chides me for that very thing.
Again, I grant that "deserves" is loaded so as a consequence of creating a brief and glib quote I failed in expressing blunt tautology rather than pointed blame. Sorry bout that.
I am not spouting defeatism - my point is that the outcome can and hopefully will be more positive than current prevailing opinion projects
If the outcome is negative, attributing the cause to those who steered the outcome in that direction is not victim blaming. Perhaps the system as become broken enough that no steering will be enough. I hope not.
The reason I haven't made direct suggestions on making the government better is that as I'm not American it is not my place to lecture. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm indirectly suggesting that analyzing cause and effect is part of the solution, since I have observed that "more of the same" does not usually turn things around when current practices have been proven not to work.
I'm still optimistic that America can find a positive path through the political minefield.
I see, you read my use of "deserved" as me righteously telling them off for their potential failure, whereas I meant it more as a straight analysis of cause and effect without judgement attached. I should have anticipated your reading of it; it's a loaded word.
My point was meant to be that the American political and power distribution system seems to have strayed off course. American society can collectively do something to correct the trajectory or they can allow it to career further on its current path, and the outcome and their fortunes will depend on the electorate's own efforts and ability (or not) to turn it around.
In Canada, we have recently seen a shift in the political winds, brought on largely by the population deciding against one style of politics and opting for another. We too in the scheme of things will get the government we deserve, and I hope it's worthy of the faith that has been put in it.
How is it bullshit? The sentiment works no matter which side you're on.
By whatever measure you want, if America elects someone who proves undesirable, it's because a) they wanted that person and their values or b) their system has become broken and it allowed the undesirable candidate to win despite their collective will, in which case they are the authors of (i.e. are deserving of) their failure.
If America elects someone who turns out to be good for them, it will be because they succeeded despite extreme obstacles and they will deserve their success. If this new leader manages to lead a corrective path (for any of a number of definitions of corrective), all the more deserving.
Ok, so assuming they succeed and the govt has back-door keys for all SSL traffic, for instance. Now they have to not only do deep-packet-inspection, but decryption too. They now have the "clear" stream, but maybe the payload is wrapped with another level of end-to-end encryption. Even if that is also back-doored, it needs decrypting, only to find another layer, and another, and the final payload maybe contains steganography and other methods. Where does it stop? (hint: it doesn't). Right, so they have determined that there is some random-looking data I have sent. What if I want to send a megabyte of random/entropy bytes to someone? Will I be branded a criminal?
Oh, it's even more dangerous with US football. The crafty coaches cover their mouths with their clipboards so the TV cameras don't see them talking to their players. They could be sending covert messages to ISIS for all we know but we've been stymied by this clever obfuscation ever since Snowden. We need to mandate and enforce transparent plexiglass clipboards for all football coaches immediately, because terror!
It's a good thing that bad guys would never knock, say they are the police, then rush in and commit crimes. Because that would mess up the whole thing where you can always be certain only the good guys would knock first and say "It's just the cops, so don't be confused by the stun grenades, menacing threats, semiautomatic weapons and ninja getup, because we're really friendly".