I'm following the Brain Tennis Match between Dorothy Denning and John Gilmore on encryption and the right to absolute privacy on Hot Wired (http://www.hotwired.com/braintennis/96/31/index0a.html). Were I a participant in this exercise, I would lob the following to Dorothy: I have to assume that Dorothy believes in absolute privacy (in some areas). I am assuming, for example, that she does not believe in torture as an interrogation technique. I assume, therefore, that she believes in absolute privacy in the individual brain. While she may support imprisonment (or the threat of imprisonment) as an interrogation technique (jailing for contempt), I think she would oppose bringing out the hot pokers. I have a wider point to make but please indulge me for a moment. The fact that many wiretapping advocates oppose torture raises a host of absolutely *fascinating* questions: 1) If it were technically possible to compel us (without pain) to disclose the contents of our mind, would Dorothy support the application of such techniques to suspects (under judicial warrants or other lawful authority)? That is, does the opposition to torture arise from squeamishness about pain or from some residual recognition of the right of personal autonomy. 2) Would those who support wiretapping but oppose torture waive their opposition to torture in certain cases. That is, if the continued existence of the United States or indeed Life on Earth were dependent on a bit of information stored in the brain of a single person, would those who countenance some invasions of privacy in the social interest allow torture in these (admittedly) rare cases? Back to the main thread: Dorothy, if you oppose torture then you have granted the validity of John's belief in absolute privacy. You are merely quibbling about where that zone of privacy ends. You might say that the zone of privacy ends at the brain but that is too narrow a range. Personal autonomy exists in the technical sense because only I command my thoughts. Only I can order my muscles to move. I can be chained and tortured and even hooked up to some sort of electrical apparatus to attempt to short circuit my muscular control and get my hand to jump but such coercion is pretty crude. If someone else wants me to dance a Waltz smoothly or write a paragraph of original material, they are going to need my cooperation (however secured). My zone of absolute privacy extends to those things I can directly control with my thoughts. This area also extends to communications. If I arrange things such that no one else can overhear me and whisper something to another person, then we both share knowledge that can only be secured by others through torture (and not always then) or through the decision of one of us to give it up. The same thought in two heads is still as much within the zone of privacy as that thought within one head. And so on multiplied by 1000. The zone of privacy arises from the inability of other people to directly command the mind of one person or a thousand persons. We have the control. Absent torture, you can't get it if we choose not to give it to you. Note that this zone already extends beyond the brain case. It travels down our nerves to the tips of our fingers and toes. We command those nerves and that wiring represents an extension of our brain. One of the things that we can do with those nerves is to use them to generate signals of various kinds. This signal generation is *also* an extension of our brain. It is under our control. If we like, we can arrange things so that no one else or only the intended recipient can know our thoughts. We have that power. We have used our zone of privacy to extend its scope. We have done (continue to do) it all from inside our brains. We have not left that sanctuary -- that fortress built by the rejection of torture by advanced societies. Therefore, if we develop the technical means to *extend* that zone of privacy beyond our heads, bodies, and those we can whisper to, you can only break the zone by the torture which you have already eschewed. The nature of the zone of privacy is not a grant from the State, it is the result of our nature as independent *actors* and our collective decision (in the West at least) to minimize the use of torture by governments. The Internet itself is an example of individual cooperation to extend communications channels from one person to many (it was built by its users). Those same users can, if they choose, use their autonomy to build in security features of their collective design. It belongs to them as their minds belong to them. It is an extension of those minds. Dorothy, you or I may not like the thoughts or communications of specific people but they have the same right to secure those thoughts and communications if they choose to. Now in reading all this, you may wonder what this has to do with key escrow and Gang of Seven (G7) crypto policy. Dorothy, as virtually the sole non-government employee who supports Clipper and SKE, I believe you to be unique in another way. I think that you can be "saved" from tyranny (which is always rough on the tyrants). Unlike the government employees on your side of the argument, you have generally not favored outlawing private use of strong crypto. We would like to separate you from them on this fundamental question of personal autonomy. The Century of Blood that the world has just lived through at the hands of its governments (160 million murdered) causes many of us to believe that some of your allies (who BTW currently include the Kingdom of the Saud and the People's Republic of China) would use torture and other very inhumane means to violate even our traditional zone of privacy. If you will merely grant to us the *morality* of our attempt to use the zone of privacy which you have granted to us to extend that zone of privacy, we will grant you an understanding of your fears of this new world (which many of us share). Please, separate yourself absolutely from the torturers. DCF