I realize this is nearly wholly off-topic, however it is sometimes worth considering _why_ so many governments are so keen on making our lives more difficult by attempting to control the use of cryptographic technology, and to force operators to make ugly architectural compromises in order to comply with "wiretap" laws. Nearly every modern government is a flavour of bureaucracy or technocracy, notwithstanding the differences in how the top ranks of government came into power or how or if they can be removed from it. Both technocracies and bureaucracies are fundamentally illiberal. They are based on the premise that the people in government are either better thinkers with better training, or simply have better access to official information, than those that they govern; therefore they have the right to countermand the individual decisions taken by individual citizens, because the technocrats and bureaucrats KNOW BETTER. This is not particularly strange; monarchists, theocrats and Leninist-type socialists have a penchant for telling people how to live their lives, because of divine right, because it is required by divine rules, or for the good of the people. The commonality is that the people who are better than you, or better informed than you, fundamentally believe that they are doing the right thing, and that any complaining provoked by their decisions is wrong because, quite simply, you aren't as smart or as well informed as the are. If you were, you would take the same decisions. Enter the Internet. This is a tool which places at nearly everyone's fingertips the ability to access nearly as much stored knowledge and information on nearly any topic as one could imagine. Moreover, it is a tool which allows for the nearly-instant global propagation of new knowledge and information as it arises. Let's return to the bureaucrat who honestly believes he or she (it's usually he, I'm afraid) is in the best position to make decisions on behalf of the people he helps govern, because he has access to information that nobody outside of the bureaucracy has. He has two fears: firstly, that the bureaucracy ultimately will fail to supply him with sufficient information to make the correct governmental decision, and secondly, that people outside the bureaucracy will have equal access to information as the people inside, and that individuals will misguidedly attempt to work around the careful consideration of any issue that a bureaucracy's vast resources usually allows for. Likewise, the technocrat, who formulates rules because he (it's usually a he) has specialised knowledge that nobody else has. Technocrats usually run environmental agencies, food-safety evaluation offices, economics ministries, and the like. One might consider them "government scientists" of a sort, however the specialised knowledge might not be exclusively scientific (think of diplomats, for example). Our technocrat shares one of the bureaucrat's fears: that the specialised knowledge will be so available through the Internet that other people will attempt to make their own decisions based on it, and that without proper training, this information will be misapplied, and people will make faulty decisions that may cause harm. Enter their responses to the Internet: 1/ make sure that a bureaucracy is supplied with ALL information so that it can make correct decisions for the benefit of those governed hidden information -- whether because it's encrypted or because it's merely hard to access -- may contain critical knowledge that may save lives, prevent monopolistic behaviour by companies, or avert the exploitation of minors it is always better for the bureaucracy to have ALL knowledge as soon as possible, so that it can rigorously analyse and consider it. this type of studying admittedly takes some time, and given the explosion of information in the Internet, it is wise to have access to copies of all the messages that traverse the Internet, rather than slowing things down by imposing restraints upon the bureaucracy (such as a judicial warrant process). the process of gathering up copies of ALL Internet messages is rather expensive without the cooperation of ISPs and the like. we must convince them that their help is essential so that the bureaucracy can continue to make the best- possible, best-informed decision for the good of those they govern. 2/ it is very clear that a supply of specialised information without specialised training can lead people to make poor, unscientific decisions. this is witnessed very clearly in the genetically modified food controversy, where the supply of scientific and technical data to non-specialists such as the media and individuals, has led people to avoid g.m. foodstuffs, when embracing g.m. technology is clearly the most logical thing to do. because of the total failure of the technocracy in this case and cases like it, it is in the interests of everyone to equip the government with means to counter the "spin" vested interests put on disclosed information, or perhaps to withhold the information altogether. in particular, when a critical decision made for good of everyone might become controversial because of initial negative reactions by less intelligent, less informed people, it may be a wise idea to temporarily weaken these individuals' ordinary civil rights, in order to protect society from the negative effects of not implementing a well-thought-out policy emanating from government specialists. We have seen an unfortunately large amount of reactions #1 and #2 lately... Government faces one final major challenge posed by the growth of the Internet: the best and brightest technical and administrative minds are no longer automatically choosing a career inside government. It is growing clear that unless something is done, there will not be the base of talent in government to allow the best possible decisions to be made. Finally, it is worth bearing in mind that: -- any group of people who honestly believe that they are the best people to rule, because they have uniquely strong administrative talents or specialised training/knowledge, will tend to be dismissive of other people's technical or administrative opinions -- any such group of people are also very concerned whenever someone who is clearly more knowledgeable than they are does not work with the bureaucracy/technocracy to help them make decisions that will better the lives of everyone that they govern "non-players" are therefore a sad waste of talent that would optimise government decision-making, or are perhaps dangerous, if they reject carefully-considered government policy without having considered all of the factors studied by the professionals in the bureaucracy It is worth bearing in mind the radical liberal sentiment expressed by Sir Rhys Hopkin-Morris, as quoted by Samuel Beer: ` [My] thoughts turn back to a dinner I attended in 1954 with virtually the whole of the Parliamentary Liberal Party. Reduced to a mere six MPs and supported by only 2.6% of the voters, the Liberals and their cause were, according to all expert opinion, destined for extinction. Yet the senior at the table, Sir Rhys Hopkin-Morris, stated his political creed with clarity and conviction. "No one", he said, "is to tell anyone else what is good for him." He rejected the claim to such authority, whether asserted on "the aristocratic principle" or on behalf of "the community". This is my mantra for today's 1st of May celebrations. Forgive the political nature of the posting. Now I will go across the street to a park filled with thousands of 1st of May celebrators enjoying spectacular summer weather. My agenda: grab a falafel off the Red Front's illiberal vegan barbecue, and have some beer with a few not-very-revolutionary local anarchists. Sean. - -- Sean Doran <smd@clock.org> Copenhagen, Denmark