Let me begin with the contentious statement that Capitalism has failed. That isn't entirely true, of course, but it is true in the most important sense. To understand this failure, and what can be done to correct it, we must first understand Capitalism itself.
The sales pitch for Bitcoin could be; "money without banks". Not only can you conduct financial transactions without some regulating authority (and by implication do so anonymously), but you can also mint your own money from nothing. It's an economic utopia which liberates us from both corporate and government control, whilst eliminating poverty.
The reality is very different, both in principle and in practice.
We Bring You Freedum!
Charles Manson had "freedom". Adolph Hitler had "freedom". Osama bin Laden had "freedom".
So too do the banksters who raped us for billions, the oil barons and weapons manufacturers that drive the war economy, and the world's richest 67 people, who between them hoard the same wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (all of which they accumulated by stealing the profits of other people's labour - i.e. capitalism).
"Freedom" is not a noble aspiration, it's something you do when you don't give a damn about other people. It's the creed of predators.
Here is an example of how to securely encrypt files under GNU/Linux, using GNU Privacy Guard, with particular respect to revelations made about the NSA by Edward Snowden and others.
I find the attitude of many within the Raspberry Pi community to be strange and offensive.
I first discovered this odd phenomenon (odd because it contradicts the ethos of the project's academic foundations) back when it first started, as many within the Raspberry Pi community took an extremely hostile attitude toward academic freedom, apparently in defence of various parties' highly dubious intellectual monopolies (Broadcom and MPEG-LA, for example).
I pointed out the irony and hypocrisy of their attitude at the time, explaining that they were more than happy to leech Free (as in freedom) Software for their own benefit, but then balked at the prospect of freely sharing the results, and in particular this contradicted their stated academic goal of facilitating better computer education in British schools, an environment that rightly demands open access to knowledge.