I'm glad that Bruce Sterling made the comments which he did, in that gathering of the right people to hear these statements. Although he sounds as though he thinks that everyone ought to be their brother's keeper, I think the paragraphs below do point out the hypocrisy in worrying about the gravity of what could be communicated in a telephone conversation or over the net that might result in advancing a criminal act, when "People stumble through the streets of every city in this country absolutely wrapped in the grip of demons, groping at passersby for a moment's attention and pity and not getting it." The contrast between cries for safety legislation and the abhorent conditions under which many live, do not demonstrate a delicate sensitivity towards higher standards of functioning which could make one sympathize with the alarms about opening up a pandora's box of crime, in such a climate of seeming disconcern for the sufferings of the individual. Who is being saved from what, and who really cares? If the answers to these questions are not resolved, then what sense does it make to put such alarms into a non-existent context. "There may be securicams running 24 hours a day all around us, but mechanical surveillance is not the same as people actually getting attention or care." And it's not the same as actually knowing what is important to an individual, and it does not convince that, although truly important values which could build up a society are being neglected, attending to these exceptional threats to safety will keep everyone from total disaster. "You want to impress me with your deep concern for children? This is Chicago! Go down to the Projects and rescue some children from being terrorized and recruited by crack gangs who wouldn't know a modem if it bit them on the ass!" Another convincing demonstration of efficacy in responding in a coordinated fashion to the safety requirements of a great society, protecting the sacredness of vulnerable littel children, the purity of the moral atmosphere, and being of practical use to all. Maybe I could appreciate someone's deep concern for my safety, but yet be unconvinced of the consequential benefit of their ministrations when there is so much evidence to the contrary. I wouldn't make the points which B. Sterling made in quite the same way, but he did present the message to our "guardians" that they are not pulling the wool over *every*one's eyes, that their hypocricy is patent, and that their motives are ridiculous about their proposed goodwill to mankind. Blanc