We draw the line in very different places. I do not place trust in an organization that has already in my eyes violated the trust of their other users several times and even when admitting it was in err not addressing the issue completely (refunding donations to a charity but keeping all the fees it earned on those donations, for example).

We will never know if the claims are bogus or not, or why accounts are frozen because PayPal does not tell us. They act with whimsy and we have no legal recourse.

They have not harmed me, that is true because I refuse to use them. They have lost my trust by showing that they have no interest in honoring a payment. For example, when they withheld donations to charities several times, admitted being wrong, apologized, returned the money, but kept the fees they charged. Just the fact that their policies give me no legal recourse against their whims (and they've shown they are whimsical many times) means I will not do business with them until they allow legal recourse or become regulated as a bank.

Both digital and analogue information cannot be secured perfectly; because some banks know not to change the default administrator from the well-known one is not a statement on how best to store a particular piece of information.

Only if the driver does not adapt to the new circumstance. Left-hand drive cars are dangerous in the hands of a driver who learned to drive a right-hand drive car for a similar reason: muscle memory not in-line with reality. The same can be said of transmission type, presence of power steering, torque, drive train, etc.

That's one data point and says nothing about the safety of ABS versus not-ABS. It speaks only that your expectations and the actual performance of the cars systems differed and caused a dangerous situation. Thankfully muscle-memory is re-trainable.

Sounds like you have some hope then, which is very different than truly believing voting is absolutely pointless.

It's hard to make your claim unless you remember all of your dreams.

If your goal is popularity, then go ahead and pander. If your goal is the betterment of yourself then find friends that don't discourage your growth and value the quality over quantity.

That is the most important sentence I've read here. It also applies to more than just the NSA.

You can vote in government elections, you can vote with your wallet by supporting business that better support privacy, you can vote with your wallet form opting out from business models that make privacy impossible and you can communicate your views to others.

Democracy has always fared better when the public discourse was contributing. Businesses have always looked at their bottom lines first.

For example, I have three options for an ISP: Comcast, the local Telco and an old-school ISP. I go with the old-school ISP despite that I can only get 3MB DSL on my line and it costs more than Comcast. I do this because 3MB is enough for my needs. They don't filter any ports, they give me a static IP address and let me run any server I damn well please, they let me max out the line 24/7, they answer their phone in minutes with a competent tech when I call and I don't support a business who's hostile towards me. Three Mb/s is enough to stream SD, download HD for offline viewing, patch giant computer games overnight and send my backup data offsite. Yes, it's not as fast as 30 MB/s that Comcast offers me, but the more money they have to advance an agenda that harms most of the people in this country.

I'm just one persona and I am sure my $100 a month Comcast doesn't see does little, but if there were 100 million of me? That would send a message. Same goes for voting. Same goes for expressing what I do and why I do it.

If you believe voting is a no-op, then why do you expend the mental and physical energy to do so? That seems irrational.

I never said it was better. There are more than those two options.

How do you know what the Green or Libertarians will do when they have that kind of power?

If that's the case, it's still unusual. I've never been to a place where there was a sign required. Here in Seattle if there's a left turn green arrow, one may enter the intersection. In fact, signs are pretty rare. (Turn lane markings are not but we're talking about permission to turn not which lane one can turn from). It's the same, from what I recall in PA, NY, MA, FL and CA.

As it should be. Why shouldn't the taxation and services provided by government be clear rather than obfuscated with road markings that contradict written rules. I much rather raise taxes and have clear markings than have to read 60,000 regulations for every municipality I visit.