Maybe you can vote better next time. Because, after all, voting is a real thing, it can change things. At least, I heard Obama said this.
If you think that you will effect substantial change by showing up every 4 years and ticking a box, then of course you'll be disappointed.
If you care about fixing this issue, then organize. Yes, it's more work than the bare minimum effort of ticking a box. Surprise -- real change takes a ton of hard work.
I don't think the answer is necessarily technical, e.g., more encryption, because having an encrypted channel is meaningless if the data is going to sit on some server unencrypted.
It has to be a "hearts and minds" issue of having everybody care that this is happening. When I talk to people about this the common response is "I have nothing to hide" and they therefore don't seem to be all that bothered.
Edit: replying to fotbr below
Voting for Obama did matter because the other option was McCain/Palin. That would be different. Just like if Al Gore had been elected we would have had a different experience than we did with Bush. Not saying utopia, but if you don't think there's a difference then you are blinded by your cynicism.
Technical means can be a solution, but it falls back to the way encrypted communications have traditionally been done: I encrypt it locally, send only the encrypted copy (ideally destroying the "plain-text" copy), and use a key (or set of keys, depending on the encryption scheme chosen) that only the recipient has possession of. This involves work; exchanging keys, etc. Any steps or solutions to make things easier necessarily involve trusting third parties, which increases the possibility of that trust, and therefore your message security, being betrayed.
As for the hearts and minds issue - I don't believe the trite saying: "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". I am, however, extremely cynical and pessimistic. So while I don't think the current trend towards a surveillance state is good at all, I do think the system is too far gone to successfully change it. The saying "power corrupts" has more truth to it than anyone really wants to admit. Bureaucracies do not like to reduce their size, or their power. Making that happen is, sadly, more likely than not going to require force and bloodshed - a path I'd rather not have this country go down.
I realize this type of thinking doesn't really help, as it offers no solutions for actual change, but that's the reason why I'm not "all that bothered" by any of the recent revelations - it's less a matter of being "bothered" and more a matter of being resigned to the reality that the average person; or even a majority of them, cannot make real change happen in a peaceful way anymore - the best we can hope for is to put a new coat of paint on while the structure keeps rotting.
One non-violent way of changing things I see is to use Bitcoin for saving and transactions as much as possible, because I don't feed the system with my tax money and confiscation through inflation. It's not perfect, but to me it's far superior to anything we have so far.
Look at it this way. If a thief on the street approaches you and tries to rob you, you have three ways: 1) beg him to not rob you (wouldn't work) 2) fight (would work, but you can get hurt) and 3) pretend you don't have any money (in which case he might as well decide to not bother with you if you can convince him you really don't have it).
Different, perhaps, but not necessarily better, or necessarily worse. What I'm saying is that the differences are so minor as to not matter in the long run. The figurehead at the top matters, yes, but not nearly as much as people think - the bulk of the power resides in congress, which is one of the reasons that nothing really changes when the presidency changes clothes and puts on the (R) robes or the (D) robes.
I'll freely admit that my cynicism and pessimism get in the way at times. On the other hand, I'm right about the actions of the government far more than I'm wrong.
I've been around long enough to see multiple administrations from both parties. I get the impression that you were not politically active prior to gwb, or if you were, it was not long beforehand -- if that is incorrect, I apologize. If I'm correct, then feel free to write me off as a lost-cause, a bitter old man, etc. because to you, that's what I am. Either way, cherish that idealism, for when it's gone, you can't get it back.
I'm well aware of the limitations and powers of government and recognize that in many ways it doesn't matter who is in office, but in many ways it does. As much as Mr. Obama has been a disappointment (and that's without buying into the "hope" b.s.), I know that President Palin's administration would be significantly worse.
By the way, GWB does deserve special attention due to the fact that he was one of the worst presidents the U.S. has ever had.
Journalists have a clear need for freedom from government scrutiny in their communications. They know this and (I think) are already embracing encryption solutions. As technologists, we can build and sell great ones. Government efforts to outlaw or compromise those will be like kicking the media's beehive, and will only highlight the need for their existence in the minds of the public.
As a example of this please pay attention to the turnout percentage in the upcoming election in New Jersey for senator. Everyone agrees that whoever wins the Democratic nomination will most likely sit in that seat for decades, but I image we will see less then 25% turnout.