i'm neither nearsighted nor a fool. don't presume. i can accept the tracking of fossil fuels, bleach, fertilizer, sulphuric-acid-based drain cleaner, essentially any non-edible or psychoactive chemical. clearly purchase of non-edible chemicals below a threshhold quantity does not present a credible threat, so there's no reason to invade the privacy of someone who's simply unstopping a toilet, cleaning laundry, or getting a fillup. schedule the threshholds so that it is not feasible to drive around to different stores to collect enough of a chemical to make a threshhold-sized bomb, for example. the only other way to know if someone has assembled the ingredients of a bomb is through massive and insidious surveillance, which is far more objectionable. the tracking is implemented by recording the purchase in the database via a point-of-sale unit. i don't like it, you don't like it, but it's a good compromise. would you prefer a simple prohibition on the sale of the more sensitive types of chemicals? of course not. am i proposing that the above, or any other scheme or combination of schemes, comprises a foolproof solution? of course not. i think you misunderstood what i meant by "tracking of all automobiles." don't track where they are (that would be draconian), track who owns them, and what model and color they are. as far as tracking deadly weapons: if there were a unified database containing the ballistic profile of every gun barrel sold, and relating with each a physically tamper-resistant serial number and current owner, and if every transfer of weapon ownership required a cryptographically authenticated exchange with a unified clearinghouse to assure that no gun is ever transferred to or kept by a convicted violent criminal, i put to you that a huge reduction in crimes with firearms will follow. moreover, legitimate ownership and use of guns is not in any way curtailed by such a system. "by saying MEAN THINGS, you are hurting people, and that is wrong." that's total hogwash. your ideas of "mean," "hurt," and "wrong" are not the same as mine, and that's exactly why i reiterate that restrictions on what i can think, who i can speak to, what i can say, and how i say it, are unacceptable. i am often offended and contemptuous, and i expect to offend and inspire resentment just as often, and that's fundamental to the human condition. it would be a disaster of unrivalled proportions if a day were to arrive when all of humanity is of one mind; fortunately that can never happen. you got sillier at this point, but i'll finish up. the government will not protect me, because the government is not there when i am mugged, carjacked, etc. i know this as something real, not as something abstract, but through a simple thought exercise it is not hard to see that this is inevitable. _prohibition_ and _tracking_ are completely different. the murder, rape, and robbery of members of the community are prohibited in our society, as in most (all?) human societies with written laws. a law which forbids conduct which directly violates the physical or organic rights of others is a legitimate prohibition. regulation, e.g. by tracking, is not the same at all. i have already explained what i mean by tracking: it is simply the concentration of data regarding the transfer of (and therefore, responsibility for) substances and machinery that when abused has a dire impact on the rights of other individuals. now on "the torture thing": i wasn't trying to be imaginative, to be honest i just jumped at a chance to construct a trite paragraph like that. it was fun for me; i hope you enjoyed it. as far as what i have already been through in my life, i have no comments to offer. as far as the susceptibility of others to have their wills bent by torture, i have no doubt they are far more vulnerable on average than i am. "just make it unnecessary to carry out terrorist acts." it's clear to me now that you didn't take enough time thinking out your flammage. "just make it unnecessary" is exactly what i am saying here; if victimless crimes were abolished (and if the income tax were abolished, which i didn't happen to mention), we'd be a lot closer to removing the impetus for terrorist acts (and for any sort of insurrection against the state). however, terrorism will never disappear completely, because there will always be ethically impoverished people who adopt agendas that are predicated on domination and enslavement, and who manipulate weak people with ideological psychobabble to get their way. that's why someone has to track chemicals and killing machines regardless of the configuration of laws. what does cryptography have to do with all this toxic waste? i am willing to forego a certain amount of privacy regarding the weapons i own, the chemicals i buy, and the vehicles i drive, so that i can have complete privacy regarding the information i store and the conversations i have. of course, more obviously, i am willing to forego a certain amount of privacy about my guns, cars, and drugs, so that i can have and use my guns, cars, and drugs. -douzzer p.s. note that i am not on this list - i will not see a reply if you don't send it to me.