April 2004 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: On Killing Blaster
by Tyler Durden 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

"Sorry that I pissed on your orthodoxy by doubting that everything was inevitable in its strongest form." Aside from inevitability there's the road taken...it may have been inevitable that the Nazi's would fall (aside from fighting a 2-front war), but they took out a few folks on their way down. It may be inevitable that crypto and other stuff saves the day, but is that before or after they get me and my family? (According to my shotgun the answer is 'after'...) -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >To: "cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Re: On Killing Blaster >Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:01:26 -0700 > >At 05:29 PM 4/13/04 -0400, An Metet wrote: > >Major Variola writes: > > > >> Crypto *can* keep bits free. And so maybe language. > >> > >> But Men with Guns control physical reality, which limits what > >> those bits can do. Read the archives on the problems with > >> linking "credits" to dollars or physical merchandise. > > > >Fine; you are questioning the feasibility of the cypherpunk model for > >achieving freedom through cryptographic anonymity. > >Isn't it within the Official Charter to explore the limits of social >crypto? The constraints imposed by possible states? > > >It is true that > >power in the physical world can, in principle, prevent the operation > >of the information infrastructure necessary for the cypherpunk dream > >to be realized. > >Bingo. > > >Whether it can do so without also impairing "good" > >information transfers to an unacceptable level remains to be seen. > >Why do you think this would stop certain states? Look at the >content-filters used in public libraries and schools. (Can't >find poultry recipes or oncology info because of mammary glands.) > > > >But suppose you're right; suppose men with guns keep crypto anarchy >from > >working, and the only recourse is to use force of your own. > >They can't control crypto, which is math; and they can't control >individual >behavior, even if they can control bulk behavior. But they do control >commerce and mass >production and the physical bit-handlers. The FCC has vans. > >Your mesh won't work so well when the only meshers are afraid of being >caught, and sparse besides. > >Don't you regard the limits of the (e.g., cypherpunk) model as part of >the study? > >When I say "the FCC has vans" (etc) it is sometimes only representative >of >precursors of trends and possibilities, if it isn't obvious. > > > > Your goals of anarchy and > >freedom are never going to be popular enough to let you win by using > >force in this way. > >You are projecting. I don't have goals of anarchy. (I'm a lib.) >I'm interested in the social implications of, and tech behind, crypto >things. >I assume most are like this, though some are socialist, and you are >a troll. > > >Some have said they want to use cypherpunk technology to facilitate > >their plans for using force to fight the oppressors. They can set up > >assassination markets; or more simply, hire hitmen anonymously using > >ecash. In this way they can bring force to bear without risk. > >AP is sci-fi (for now) precisely because of the control over the >physical >implementations of bits and currency. > >That some here predicted, even advocated that such a technical system >would be used >to clean up the civil servant population is another matter entirely. > >Both are valid if orthogonal points. (Civilian-authorities get fragged >even without compooters) > >And IMHO you'd be immoral, for some possible future (and past) civil >servant populations, to object to this encouragement, to feel a little >hope >that one possible future isn't a boot stomping a face, forever (even if >that face >is reading uncensorable news while being stomped) > > > >But the reverse is true as well: if and when such markets come to >exist, > >it can only be because the cypherpunk dream has succeeded beyond our > >wildest hopes. A world in which such applications exist despite the > >most stringent efforts on the part of the State to eradicate them is >one > >in which cypherpunks have truly succeeded in burrowing so deep into the > > >information infrastructure that they can never be stopped. It is a >world > >in which anonymity is preserved, one where contracts and payment >systems > >have been developed for even the most risky and uncertain enterprises. > >I don't think my membership card requires me to believe that there is >only >one possible future outcome. It requires me to understand how such >a system works, including how it might work on a social level. > > > >If cypherpunk technology works to this degree, then it will open up > >tremendous new opportunities for people to evade the power of >government. > >The one overwhelming trend as we move into the 21st century is the >power > >of information. This is why governments more and more are trying to >crack > >down and limit its propagation. If cypherpunk technologies are able to > > >transcend these restrictions, as is implied by the potential existence >of > >assassination markets, there is essentially no limit to what they can >do. > >Get off the assassination thang. Yes, uncensorable news & views >will be possible. That's not sufficient. > > >The physical world is going to be increasingly less important as we go > >forward. What counts is the flow of information. > >Freedom of expression (bits) is one of many rights. Crypto can do the >most here. >But bits don't exist outside of physical implementations, so they rely >on physical rights. >Also, most rights are physical rights ("the right to be left alone" is >more general than >"the right to be free of compelled speech"). > >That is what needs > >to be protected and made free from interference. If we can achieve > >that, the physical world won't much matter. You won't need your guns, > >and assassination markets, if they exist, won't be a force for freedom, > > >but merely another hazard of the physical world, that most people avoid > > >as much as possible. > >Um, we're talking about meshing radios, not guns or AP. And social >(govt) control of things like those radios, and networks, and the >devices >that use them. And how such physical control might affect reaching the >cypherpunk-predicted future. > >Sorry that I pissed on your orthodoxy by doubting that everything was >inevitable in its strongest form.. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Tax headache? MSN Money provides relief with tax tips, tools, IRS forms and more! http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/workshop/welcome.asp

1 0

Reflections on a Master
by R. A. Hettinga 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

<http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0426/065_print.html> Forbes Insights Reflections on a Master Peter Huber, 04.26.04, 12:00 AM ET Is technology destined to make us helpless, as George Orwell predicted in 1984, or to empower us? I recently spent several hours with a man who has thought a lot about this question and as a banker fashioned some of the answer: Walter Wriston. In 1947 Wriston was guarding two electromechanical Sigaba encryption machines for the Army on the Pacific island of Cebu. Soon after he accepted an entry-level job at First National City Bank. He went on to serve as chief executive of what is now Citigroup for 17 years, until he retired in 1984. Along the way--years ahead of Gates and Google--he invested almost $2 billion of Citicorp's money to wire it all together, so that traders, and then customers, could get real-time access to their accounts and cash. Next time you step up to an automatic teller machine, think of Wriston. It was Citibank that pioneered this "thin branch" on Wriston's watch. Betting the bank on telecom technology, Wriston dramatically extended Citicorp's reach. It emerged as the Coca-Cola of financial services, the largest foreign lender and the lender most actively engaged in developing countries. Other banks were forced to follow. And this wiring of the world's financial markets had a greater impact on our daily lives than any other private-sector initiative since the invention of the steam engine. As Wriston describes in his 1992 book, The Twilight of Sovereignty, he watched and responded as governments lost control over two key levers of state power, the power to define what is true about how ordinary people live under different forms of government, and the power to define the value of the nation's currency. In the U.S. the gold standard gave way to the information standard in 1971--Richard Nixon ceded control of the value of the dollar to Wriston's network and the millions of traders scattered around the globe, who now use it to conduct the second-by-second plebiscites that set the values of currencies, stocks, bonds and much else besides. For a billion or so ordinary consumers, the fully wired debit/credit card--Wriston's currency, one could call it--now provides far more liquidity than Alan Greenspan's bills. Wriston won't take credit for any of this. As he tells the story of his extraordinary life, he was a simple, plodding fellow, lucky enough to be surrounded by real talent. Behind all the self-effacing diffidence, however, stands a warm, engaging, confident man with terrific judgment, a reliable sense of the future and the courage to take big, calculated risks. The truly great bosses I've met over the years have all been like that. So was Ronald Reagan. Reagan knew how to do entertainment, too, but most of the Wriston-style leaders are too boring for prime time. The nightly news thus focuses, instead, on flamboyant but inconsequential personalities and the corporate investments that fail. Wriston has no Panglossian illusions about technology. We don't yet know whether or not wired networks have made global financial networks more stable. Minute-to-minute volatility is certainly higher than it used to be, he says, but the system may simultaneously impose essential discipline, and thus stability, on central bankers and political autocrats. Wriston recognizes that stateless cash makes possible stateless jobs, and that the decline of sovereign power has facilitated the rise of stateless armies--terrorists. He understands technology for what it is--not necessarily a powerful force for good, but certainly a powerful force, which good people can direct to good ends if they choose. Wired money--the ATM--is convenient, and saves us time. Wired weapons help us pursue our enemies into the caves and spider holes in which they hide. While Wriston was guarding encryption machines on the island of Cebu, Orwell was writing his novel on the island of Jura, off the coast of Scotland. Big Brother, as Orwell envisioned him, would only be the face on the "telescreen"--the real power would be exercised behind the phosphor by a cabal of faceless government bureaucrats and corporate executives who would control everything. Orwell died a few years later; Wriston, one might say, joined the cabal. He rose through the ranks, reached the top, built the machine and ran it for a long stretch. In the future Orwell imagined, the hapless, tragic Winston Smith ends up defeated by the machine. In the future that Walter Wriston created, we carry the machine in our cell phones, shop with it at Wal-Mart and browse it in our dens. Peter Huber, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow, is the author of Hard Green: Saving the Environment From the Environmentalists and the Digital Power Report. Find past columns at www.forbes.com/huber. -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

Re: On Killing Blaster
by Major Variola (ret) 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

At 05:29 PM 4/13/04 -0400, An Metet wrote: >Major Variola writes: > >> Crypto *can* keep bits free. And so maybe language. >> >> But Men with Guns control physical reality, which limits what >> those bits can do. Read the archives on the problems with >> linking "credits" to dollars or physical merchandise. > >Fine; you are questioning the feasibility of the cypherpunk model for >achieving freedom through cryptographic anonymity. Isn't it within the Official Charter to explore the limits of social crypto? The constraints imposed by possible states? It is true that >power in the physical world can, in principle, prevent the operation >of the information infrastructure necessary for the cypherpunk dream >to be realized. Bingo. >Whether it can do so without also impairing "good" >information transfers to an unacceptable level remains to be seen. Why do you think this would stop certain states? Look at the content-filters used in public libraries and schools. (Can't find poultry recipes or oncology info because of mammary glands.) >But suppose you're right; suppose men with guns keep crypto anarchy from >working, and the only recourse is to use force of your own. They can't control crypto, which is math; and they can't control individual behavior, even if they can control bulk behavior. But they do control commerce and mass production and the physical bit-handlers. The FCC has vans. Your mesh won't work so well when the only meshers are afraid of being caught, and sparse besides. Don't you regard the limits of the (e.g., cypherpunk) model as part of the study? When I say "the FCC has vans" (etc) it is sometimes only representative of precursors of trends and possibilities, if it isn't obvious. > Your goals of anarchy and >freedom are never going to be popular enough to let you win by using >force in this way. You are projecting. I don't have goals of anarchy. (I'm a lib.) I'm interested in the social implications of, and tech behind, crypto things. I assume most are like this, though some are socialist, and you are a troll. >Some have said they want to use cypherpunk technology to facilitate >their plans for using force to fight the oppressors. They can set up >assassination markets; or more simply, hire hitmen anonymously using >ecash. In this way they can bring force to bear without risk. AP is sci-fi (for now) precisely because of the control over the physical implementations of bits and currency. That some here predicted, even advocated that such a technical system would be used to clean up the civil servant population is another matter entirely. Both are valid if orthogonal points. (Civilian-authorities get fragged even without compooters) And IMHO you'd be immoral, for some possible future (and past) civil servant populations, to object to this encouragement, to feel a little hope that one possible future isn't a boot stomping a face, forever (even if that face is reading uncensorable news while being stomped) >But the reverse is true as well: if and when such markets come to exist, >it can only be because the cypherpunk dream has succeeded beyond our >wildest hopes. A world in which such applications exist despite the >most stringent efforts on the part of the State to eradicate them is one >in which cypherpunks have truly succeeded in burrowing so deep into the >information infrastructure that they can never be stopped. It is a world >in which anonymity is preserved, one where contracts and payment systems >have been developed for even the most risky and uncertain enterprises. I don't think my membership card requires me to believe that there is only one possible future outcome. It requires me to understand how such a system works, including how it might work on a social level. >If cypherpunk technology works to this degree, then it will open up >tremendous new opportunities for people to evade the power of government. >The one overwhelming trend as we move into the 21st century is the power >of information. This is why governments more and more are trying to crack >down and limit its propagation. If cypherpunk technologies are able to >transcend these restrictions, as is implied by the potential existence of >assassination markets, there is essentially no limit to what they can do. Get off the assassination thang. Yes, uncensorable news & views will be possible. That's not sufficient. >The physical world is going to be increasingly less important as we go >forward. What counts is the flow of information. Freedom of expression (bits) is one of many rights. Crypto can do the most here. But bits don't exist outside of physical implementations, so they rely on physical rights. Also, most rights are physical rights ("the right to be left alone" is more general than "the right to be free of compelled speech"). That is what needs >to be protected and made free from interference. If we can achieve >that, the physical world won't much matter. You won't need your guns, >and assassination markets, if they exist, won't be a force for freedom, >but merely another hazard of the physical world, that most people avoid >as much as possible. Um, we're talking about meshing radios, not guns or AP. And social (govt) control of things like those radios, and networks, and the devices that use them. And how such physical control might affect reaching the cypherpunk-predicted future. Sorry that I pissed on your orthodoxy by doubting that everything was inevitable in its strongest form..

1 0

American Airlines Is Third Company To Share Data (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
by Eugen Leitl 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

----- Forwarded message from brian-slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org -----

1 0

VIA Releases Source To Custom WASTE Client (fwd from brian-slashdotnews@hyperreal.org)
by Eugen Leitl 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

----- Forwarded message from brian-slashdotnews(a)hyperreal.org -----

1 0

Re: On Killing Blaster
by Tyler Durden 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

"Then what are you doing here? This list is for discussing and implementing cypherpunk concepts. If you deny them, you should go elsewhere to pursue your goals." Tsk tsk...this sounds like Orthodoxy to me. Part of the benefit of an anarchy is to support otherwise-suppressed forms of existence and states of mind. If Variola can't at least suggest these ideas here, then Cypherpunks has become Cypherfacist. While I personally still believe that Crypto and other technologies will be enough ("The meek shall inherit the earth"), that's by no means obvious yet. Variola and May and others are the little nagging voices that force one to consider whether physical measures will be necessary and/or called for. -TD >From: An Metet <anmetet(a)freedom.gmsociety.org> >To: cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net >Subject: Re: On Killing Blaster >Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:29:06 -0400 > >Major Variola writes: > > > Language is how you manipulate people from a distance. Much > > more convenient than hitting them. > > > > Crypto *can* keep bits free. And so maybe language. > > > > But Men with Guns control physical reality, which limits what > > those bits can do. Read the archives on the problems with > > linking "credits" to dollars or physical merchandise. > >Fine; you are questioning the feasibility of the cypherpunk model for >achieving freedom through cryptographic anonymity. It is true that >power in the physical world can, in principle, prevent the operation >of the information infrastructure necessary for the cypherpunk dream >to be realized. Whether it can do so without also impairing "good" >information transfers to an unacceptable level remains to be seen. > >But suppose you're right; suppose men with guns keep crypto anarchy from >working, and the only recourse is to use force of your own. Then what are >you doing here? This list is for discussing and implementing cypherpunk >concepts. If you deny them, you should go elsewhere to pursue your goals. > >The practical problem with using force is that people will fight back. >And there are far more of them than you. In a democratic system, >government policies have widespread support. If you start knocking off >California legislators you will soon find the massive might of the State >directed against your health and well being. Your goals of anarchy and >freedom are never going to be popular enough to let you win by using >force in this way. > >Some have said they want to use cypherpunk technology to facilitate >their plans for using force to fight the oppressors. They can set up >assassination markets; or more simply, hire hitmen anonymously using >ecash. In this way they can bring force to bear without risk. > >But this reasoning is self-contradictory. If force is necessary, it >is because cypherpunk technology has failed. As you predict, "Men with >Guns" will be controlling the bits via their control of physical reality. >There will be no anonymous assassination markets to help you pursue your >violent goals. > >But the reverse is true as well: if and when such markets come to exist, >it can only be because the cypherpunk dream has succeeded beyond our >wildest hopes. A world in which such applications exist despite the >most stringent efforts on the part of the State to eradicate them is one >in which cypherpunks have truly succeeded in burrowing so deep into the >information infrastructure that they can never be stopped. It is a world >in which anonymity is preserved, one where contracts and payment systems >have been developed for even the most risky and uncertain enterprises. > >If cypherpunk technology works to this degree, then it will open up >tremendous new opportunities for people to evade the power of government. >The one overwhelming trend as we move into the 21st century is the power >of information. This is why governments more and more are trying to crack >down and limit its propagation. If cypherpunk technologies are able to >transcend these restrictions, as is implied by the potential existence of >assassination markets, there is essentially no limit to what they can do. > >The physical world is going to be increasingly less important as we go >forward. What counts is the flow of information. That is what needs >to be protected and made free from interference. If we can achieve >that, the physical world won't much matter. You won't need your guns, >and assassination markets, if they exist, won't be a force for freedom, >but merely another hazard of the physical world, that most people avoid >as much as possible. > _________________________________________________________________ Get rid of annoying pop-up ads with the new MSN Toolbar FREE! http://toolbar.msn.com/go/onm00200414ave/direct/01/

1 0

Re: On Killing Blaster
by Tyler Durden 14 Apr '04

14 Apr '04

"Where are you going to buy your hardware from, that it can't be shut down? How are you going to hide your TX from the DXing white vans?" Well, you made some interesting points. Actually, it would seem that some of the Islamic regimes as well as mainland China have been at least partially successful in blocking 'objectionable' content. So in a state where the forces that be have made a fairly complete victory, it just might be possible I guess to close down objectionable physical bits. So I guess that still has to be weighed against the value of human life. My point was that "Needs Killing" is something that should be considered fairly carefully...acted upon only when there's really no alternative. (But then again, you may have only been talking. You ever kill anyone Variola?) -TD >From: "Major Variola (ret)" <mv(a)cdc.gov> >To: "cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net" <cypherpunks(a)al-qaeda.net> >Subject: Re: On Killing Blaster >Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 20:03:30 -0700 > >At 04:26 PM 4/11/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote: > >"When faced with force, you reply with force when you can." > > > >Nah. This isn't even true in a fistfight, except when the guy you're > >fighting is a) significantly smaller than you, and b) less trained. >More > >often than not, if someone attacks you, it's because they either have >or > >perceive themselves to have an overwhelmingly superior force. > >See "asymetric warfare" > >Sometimes a stronger adversary decides its not worth it. See Lebanon >and a few hundred dead Marines. See Vietnam. > >(Speaking of which, I heard McCain arguing that if we leave .iq >the place becomes a hotbed of 'terrorism'. Anyone remember the >Domino theory?) > >And of course, if it's possible to > >diarm your opponent without actually killing or maiming him, that's > >sometimes far more appropriate... > >No, then he'll sue you. > > >As someone said better than myself, Crypto is one little tool in an >aresenal > >against "Men with Guns"...in the end Men With Guns will probably try to > > >shoot away bits, but it's not going to work too well. > >You forget that there are no bits which are not physical. Physical >things reside on land leased from the State (try not paying your >real estate taxes). All cables make a landing somewhere. > >Meanwhile, P2P, WiFi, > >Crypto,and lots of other stuff will slowly start to chip away at things >on > >the edges, until the core is exposed. > >Where are you going to buy your hardware from, that it can't be >shut down? How are you going to hide your TX from the DXing >white vans? > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN Premium! http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/dir…

1 0

Re: On Killing Blaster
by An Metet 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Major Variola writes: > Language is how you manipulate people from a distance. Much > more convenient than hitting them. > > Crypto *can* keep bits free. And so maybe language. > > But Men with Guns control physical reality, which limits what > those bits can do. Read the archives on the problems with > linking "credits" to dollars or physical merchandise. Fine; you are questioning the feasibility of the cypherpunk model for achieving freedom through cryptographic anonymity. It is true that power in the physical world can, in principle, prevent the operation of the information infrastructure necessary for the cypherpunk dream to be realized. Whether it can do so without also impairing "good" information transfers to an unacceptable level remains to be seen. But suppose you're right; suppose men with guns keep crypto anarchy from working, and the only recourse is to use force of your own. Then what are you doing here? This list is for discussing and implementing cypherpunk concepts. If you deny them, you should go elsewhere to pursue your goals. The practical problem with using force is that people will fight back. And there are far more of them than you. In a democratic system, government policies have widespread support. If you start knocking off California legislators you will soon find the massive might of the State directed against your health and well being. Your goals of anarchy and freedom are never going to be popular enough to let you win by using force in this way. Some have said they want to use cypherpunk technology to facilitate their plans for using force to fight the oppressors. They can set up assassination markets; or more simply, hire hitmen anonymously using ecash. In this way they can bring force to bear without risk. But this reasoning is self-contradictory. If force is necessary, it is because cypherpunk technology has failed. As you predict, "Men with Guns" will be controlling the bits via their control of physical reality. There will be no anonymous assassination markets to help you pursue your violent goals. But the reverse is true as well: if and when such markets come to exist, it can only be because the cypherpunk dream has succeeded beyond our wildest hopes. A world in which such applications exist despite the most stringent efforts on the part of the State to eradicate them is one in which cypherpunks have truly succeeded in burrowing so deep into the information infrastructure that they can never be stopped. It is a world in which anonymity is preserved, one where contracts and payment systems have been developed for even the most risky and uncertain enterprises. If cypherpunk technology works to this degree, then it will open up tremendous new opportunities for people to evade the power of government. The one overwhelming trend as we move into the 21st century is the power of information. This is why governments more and more are trying to crack down and limit its propagation. If cypherpunk technologies are able to transcend these restrictions, as is implied by the potential existence of assassination markets, there is essentially no limit to what they can do. The physical world is going to be increasingly less important as we go forward. What counts is the flow of information. That is what needs to be protected and made free from interference. If we can achieve that, the physical world won't much matter. You won't need your guns, and assassination markets, if they exist, won't be a force for freedom, but merely another hazard of the physical world, that most people avoid as much as possible.

1 0

Re: Fornicalia Lawmaker Moves to Block Gmail
by An Metet 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

> Really, what's the difference between scanning the message in order to, > say, render HTML tags it may contain, and scanning it in order to > generate targetted advertising based on keywords it contains? That's irrelevant. These arguments that Gmail is just like other services are nothing but red herrings. Surely cypherpunks should understand that the recipient of a message can do whatever he wants with it. He can save it to disk, he can share it with his friends, or he can contract with Gmail to add targeted advertising. It's contrary to everything cypherpunks stand for to suggest that the sender of a message should have some power or authority over what happens to it once it is in the receiver's hands. Even if Gmail were completely new and nothing like it had ever existed in the world before, it would be perfectly acceptable for mail recipients to use the service. That follows from their inherent freedom to use the information under their control. Please save these tired arguments by analogy for another forum. Cypherpunks agree on the basic desirability of individual freedom, and that is enough to settle the question.

1 0

Re: Fornicalia Lawmaker Moves to Block Gmail
by Gil Hamilton 13 Apr '04

13 Apr '04

Justin <justin-cypherpunks(a)soze.net> writes: >Riad S. Wahby (2004-04-13 01:49Z) wrote: > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040412/wr_nm/tech_google_dc_1 > > > A private interaction between two consenting parties has absolutely > > nothing to do with the state, period. The bitch supporting this shit > > should be removed from office forthwith. > >It's not just a private interaction between two consenting parties. >It's a contract that grants power to a third party eliminating >traditional legal guarantees of quasi-privacy in communication from >sender to recipient, one of which is not a party to the contract. No privacy is lost in the gmail system; no information about either party is disclosed to any third party. The information contained in the message still remains private to the sender and recipient (well, to the extent that any web-based mail can be considered "private"). Exactly what "traditional legal guarantees" do you think would be lost in the gmail system? >There's no guarantee the average sender would know that mail to gmail is >intercepted and parsed. So what? The average sender doesn't understand that mail is "intercepted and parsed" by each SMTP or POP server encountered in the path from sender to recipient. Or that their message is written to the hard disk of each of those systems as well. What the average sender understands is irrelevant unless there is some bearing on his expectation of privacy in the message contents. Really, what's the difference between scanning the message in order to, say, render HTML tags it may contain, and scanning it in order to generate targetted advertising based on keywords it contains? The latter could also be considered as merely part of the rendering process. - GH _________________________________________________________________ Persistent heartburn? Check out Digestive Health & Wellness for information and advice. http://gerd.msn.com/default.asp

1 0