From: Timothy C. May " . . .I don't think in terms of "rights," but in terms of avoidance. . . . . . * If I suspect someone is plotting against me--perhaps I suspect my neighbor across the street is preparing to torch my house--I'd have no problem placing microphones so as to hear him. Or bugging a girlfriend I suspected of planning to kill me for my money." If your neighbor or girl"friend" were plotting against you using email, they could avoid your spying using PGP and anonymous remailers. "So, do we argue for "rights" of privacy? Or do we monkeywrench such technologies? Or do we develop tools and systems to protect our own privacy as best we can?" You could argue and and still not be understood or agreed with. The concept of "rights" is really only meaningful in the context of a group of people, a society which has agreed to band together for some purpose. But since it can't be guaranteed that anyone would be educated on the matter of observing the delineated rights, or that having been educated they would respect them and observe limits upon themselves in regard of these rights, it would be unwise to desist from the development of the tools and systems for self-protection. I can't see where any anarcho-type, or any rational person, would give up the liberty to be creative in developing the ideas which one could get for the design of tools & systems per se, some of which could be applied to privacy or personal safety (although there could be objections to making them commercially available). Blanc