Aimee wrote:

I agree, but you yourself stated that the average American isn't that concerned about privacy and won't purchase privacy enhancing technologies. (In a general privacy sense, I don't see a lot of "privacy reclamation." I do see a lot of notice provisions -- the functional equivalent of placing 99% of Americans in a social-adhesion contract.) I don't think it's conservative. I think it is a new and unusual threat - to the majority of Americans.

I've been thinking about the current trend in privacy regulations also. I came to the same conclusion. My bank sent me a shiny new leaflet explaining their privacy position. It wasn't even an especially desirable or equitable position, but they presumably felt the new regulations obliged them to write it. I'm thinking: "so how do the laws that caused this leaflet to be written help my privacy?" These laws are almost exclusively about *handling* of data, rather than questioning the fact that the data is collected in the first place. (Well there is a principle that they should have a reason for collecting it, and/or that they get consent, but they do have some reason to have pretty much all the data they collect by their standards.) So here's the problem: these laws will if anything make it less visible what information companies and governments have on you because they will restrict uses. How the data is handled and used isn't the problem, the problem is that the information is collected, and available to law enforcement, national intelligence and your average dick (private detective). Privacy to me means being able to keep my affairs private from governments if I choose. The UK princple allowing you to use any name you want (so long as it is not for committing fraud or a crime) is agood one. (I'm hoping that using an alias does not affect the legal systems evaluation of the severity of the crime -- and that there are no "use of an alias in the commission of a crime" types things in effect though I don't know the details). So with this definition of privacy, the actual problem is the existance of a whole raft of laws outlawing privacy. New laws governing use are window dressing. I don't even care about the use typically, junk mail is easy to throw away. Think about for example anti-money laundering laws vs the desire for financial privacy in a free society. The requirement to show and present government issued ID for all sorts of things in society and so on. So the solution appears to be technological countermeasures, and repealing laws. Neither of which appear even remotely likely within the political system. The political system has a systemic desire to create more laws. Every new law introduces more problems. The people writing the laws don't know the technology, they are control freaks, and pander to media and take bribes and broker favors with special interest groups. So at this point I firmly believe in "write code not laws", and think that "cypherpunks write code" is important. btw. The main reason I have not indulged overly in political discussions for some time is that I resolved to not even spend the time to read or keep up to date overly with government and legal system intrusions into privacy. The historical predictor that whatever they are doing it's bad for privacy and the balance of power is sufficient information for code writing. Reading the crap is just frustrating. Time better spent writing code. So the question of what code to write is the consuming question these days.

Oh, blah, I'm sure I'm not adding to the intellectual group capital

Actually you're pretty far above average first post in insightfullness. Welcome to cypherpunks. (btw "Mr" etc is more formal than normal here, and you never know if it's correct half the time -- I've come across at least two people who I had presumed the wrong sex for. Nyms, handles email aliases -- just refer to people by whatever they refer to themselves by. Some don't even give a handle.) Adam Personal opinions of course.