Perry, Thanks for your inquiry. The post "No Privacy Right in UK ?" is closely related to cryptography in at least three ways. (1) Cryptography is a means to accomplish an end: privacy. That's why the epigraph Cypherpunks assume privacy is a good thing and wish there were more of it heads up the post, "No Privacy Right in UK ?" (2) Farther, the case discussed in the post was a prosaic example of invasion of privacy by deception. That the case is ordinary, and therefore liable to be lost sight of, makes it all the more significant that the largest London daily publicized it; and did so in a sympathetic manner. That helps us here in the United States to propagate the importance of the right to privacy. Cy- pherpunks --poetic defenders of privacy (see the epigraph)-- can reciprocate the favor by bringing it to people's attention. Cryptography is not the only means of reversing deceptive inva- sions of privacy. But it is peculiarly suitable for reversing some such invasions because it uses deception to ensure, rather than invade, privacy. Thus it can provide a model for the so- called prosaic cases: the sting. For the sting also is designed to deceive deceivers, criminal or otherwise. Privacy is, in part, protection from victimization. (3) Further, Clinton attended an elite university in the UK. Can you imagine what notions he may have found attractive there? Notions that can be "encoded" to make them attractive to us here in the States; then, if we buy into them, can be "decoded" and...applied! Cordially, Jim INCLOSURE: On Fri, 17 Nov 1995, Perry E. Metzger wrote: Could you please explain what this has to do with cryptography? "James M. Cobb" writes: 11 16 95 The Electronic Telegraph runs a newsstory headed Doorstep polish researcher was whiplash injuries spy