On 15 May 96 at 0:45, Ed Carp wrote:

The problem, however, is twofold - (1) the government will play mind games on the rest of the population to make you look like a terrorist, or whatever turns the populace against you,

Well, first of all, we should find how much of the population *really* believe in what govt says. There is a difference between the politically correct opinion that Joe & Jane Public give to a poll interviewer and what they really think. Second, you suppose that Joe & Jane Public really like and approve what they understand from what the medias say. And finally third, this system does not work according to the will of a majority. It wouldn't take too many peoples who believe that the medias and their perceived lack of integrity is widely responsible for the way the world goes right now, to have a substantial prize put on the head of the medias. Therefore, any journalist with two+ working neurons will realize that sticking to the most objective facts available would be the best way to build a great reputation while sticking to govt propaganda would be a great way to attract a prize on his head.

and (2) the government tends to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. They don't care what kind of collateral damage they inflict (witness Waco and Ruby Ridge) as long as they can make their point.

If peoples decided to put a prize on the medias or some jounalists *before* they do on the govt, it might very well undercut many of the counterattack any govt might have. Among the ways a govt would have to circumvent that might be: - create their own medias and have tight security and anonymity - forbid the press from reporting certain events - etc. (Again, many counter arguments have as a basic premise that the populace is stupid. I do not believe the contrary, I simply say that I do not know. Future will show.) So, to see how AP will make the system evolve, you have to assess the communication capabilities of govt vs the individual. This is central to AP and the nature of actual govts. This is *why* the internet is *so* dangerous to any govts that seek to either retain or increase their power, even if it actually touches only but a tiny portion of world population. For the first time in the history of humanity, we have a peer to peer communication capability and an individual-to-world broadcasting capability that is not controllable in practice by any other entity (such as law, high finance, etc) The explains fully why the various govts what to find a way to enforce internet laws, breakable crypto schemes and non-anonymous protocols. JFA PLEASE NOTE: THIS POST DOES NOT MEAN THAT I ENDORSE MR. BELL'S SYSTEM. MY RATIONNAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT IT'S INTERNAL MECHANICS AND IT'S INTRINSIC LOGICS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I LIKE NOR ENDORSE THE SYSTEM. I SIMPLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT THE SYSTEM FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED. IMO, IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, Silverware and mouth blown crystal glasses JFA Technologies, R&D consultants. Physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891