Responding to Tom DeBoni's message concerning whether or not government officials should have a right to secure communications.

I submit that the amount of (real or potential) oversight should be somehow proportional to the potential for harm or abuse of power available to the individual involved. Surely Ollie North or Richard Nixon had much greater abilities to subvert the democratic process or otherwise break the law than Professor Smith of the Chemistry Dept. of State U.

Agreed! I agree with Dave Deltorto's idea about "a body that decided on a case by case (or a class by class) basis what accounts would be subject to heavy scrutiny". Or perhaps limiting certain public servants (the chief executive, Oliver North's successor, etc) to a set of "open" computing systems and communication paths. (Similar to limiting people with security clearances to sets of closed computing systems, communication paths.) Dave says:

Unfortunately, this begins to create a overseeing body so huge and convolute as to render the entire process unwieldly approaching on the absurd. I read Kafka's "The Trial" and I don't want to face that sort of Juggernaut any time soon.

Unwieldy? Kafka-esque? Expensive? Possibly, but it doesn't have to be that way. As Bongo says: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." How much do you want to pay? Eric Fogleman