On the bright side, at least the Clinton administration is trying to stir up interest in privacy issues amongst the general public. Between the administration's support of Clipper, National ID cards, National Health cards and Digital Telephony (have they supported this yet?), there should start to be a lot of public interest in these issues. Personally, rather than _just_ naysay everything that is being proposed (which I will do, strongly), I would like more concrete recommendations and proposals to make on the positive side that use technologies like digital signatures and reputations to *protect* privacy while still allowing many of the familiar sorts of social/economic interactions that we take for granted. Perhaps we can pull an Aikido maneuver on this sudden gov power grab (ok,ok, pretty far-fetched). But, short of tracking down the Scientific American article from a couple of years ago and re-reading it (and I'm sure it's out of date), I'm not really sure what we can do with pseudonymous reputations and whatnot given the current state-of-the-art. So, I'd like suggestions, comments about alternative ways of establishing digital IDs, insurance cards, credit cards, etc. that protect privacy instead of divulge it, while still providing some of the societal controls that we have come to expect (e.g. that drunk drivers will be deprived of a license to drive). Do we have alternative suggestions to make in this dark hour so that we can actually win back some of our privacy? Can these sorts of technologies be implemented in a way that is understandable by the average citizen-unit? -- Benjamin McLemore analyst@onramp,net PS I wonder what exactly Justice and/or the spooks have on Clinton that's so effective? Or are he and Gore actually as stupid as they act?