(And I get flamed by multiple people because I put in the quote and managed to hit send before adding the commentary. Maybe one of these days I'll learn not to try to mix replying to e-mail and dealing with vendor engineers doing a tape library expansion at the same time. :) Oh well, equivalent text follows as a reply to Scott...) On Tue, 17 May 2011 16:05:11 PDT, Scott Weeks said:

It doesn't have to be that way. We can design these things any way we want.

True. The question is whether we get to *deploy* said designs.

Why give the corpment (corporate/government contraction) an easy time at it? Just like the early days, security and privacy do not seem to be in folk's mind when things are being designed.

But more importantly, who has more/better lobbyists, you or the people who want things like COICA and ACTA? You're going to have to fix *that* problem before trying to address it at the protocol level will do any real, lasting good. Either that or we need a *lot* more TOR relays (while those are still legal). Oh, and an article that coincidentally popped up since I hit 'send' on the previous mail: http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/05/anonymize-data-limits.html Designing things to evade good data mining is a *lot* harder than it looks.