I try to abide the principle that if one gets anonymized all should. However, there is a disparity in who gets to leverage that anonymity -- from the citizen to the empowered official. We have now more privilege of conealment on the official side, and that needs redress, constant redress a rebel might yell. Not much of my proposal is radical: there is a long tradition for officials to own up to what they do in their official roles. The uniformed police, the uniformed military services. That is far less done in the case of the spooks and, increasingly lately, law enforcement and the military as the latter adopt the practices and more importantly the technology of spooks -- and the spooks' lack of public accountability (those oversight committees are a fraud). The culture of secrecy is vastly overweighted in favor of government, and much of that derives from hoary claims of national security. Undercover and covert operations have become far more pervasive in the US government and military than ever, and constitute a privileged elite in mil/gov, and often law enforcement, moving from the federal agencies into state and locals -- and contractors and suppliers for all these. And all are bound by a complicitous and luxurious veil of secrecy. It is fairly common for goodhearts to question government but not when national security, and more recently, domestic security, is bruited. But that is due to a well-crafted educational campaign to raise national security to a theological level, and its rational is itself cloaked in secrecy. A similar theologizing is underway, methinks despite Declan's unreflective demurral, in the campaign for combatting domestic terrorism, the Homeland Defense demonolgy. Having learned much here about the futility of trying to determine who gets privacy technology and who does not, it remains true that for most of us access to this technology is very recent and we know not what lies outside our knowledge. I am not as sanguine about government as I was before being semi-educated by this list about what technology is in covert use. And I am not as sanguine about the wisdom of providing technology to government on the same footing as the citizen. There is more than a bit of marketing opportunism is this view -- and government knows very well what power the purse has to seduce young firms into the world of secrecy. So I say again, that despite it being economic foolhardiness, indeed because it is that, there needs to be a code of practice for anonimyzer developers to state their policy of helping governments snoop on us without us knowing. Agnosticism in this matter is complicity when such a stance cloaks government intrusiveness. Look, I'll accept that we will all succumb to the power of the market, so limit my proposal for full disclosure to those over 30. After that age one should know there is no way to be truly open-minded.