> Even our memories are not absolutely private in the United States. Even our communications with our spouses, with our lawyers, with our clergy, with our medic

> Even our memories are not absolutely private in the United States. Even our communications with our spouses, with our lawyers, with our clergy, with our medical professionals are not absolutely private. A judge in certain circumstances can order all of us to testify about what we saw or remembered or heard. And that's a problem. Communications with spouses, lawyers, clergy and physicians ought to be absolutely privileged. The disadvantages of doing so are outweighed by the advantages. Frankly, I don't think anyone should be compelled to give testimony for the prosecution (I am okay with the defense being able to compel testimony). If someone has knowledge of a crime, but disagrees that it should be a crime, he should be free to keep his mouth shut. > It is seductive when I hear someone say, “Absolute privacy is the paramount value. Our devices are designed to ensure that privacy is absolute in America.” Then, I stop and I step back and I realize, “You know, we’ve actually never lived that way. That is a different way to live.” It's a better way to live. > That’s criminals not caught, that’s evidence not found, that’s sentences that are far, far shorter for pedophiles and others because judges can’t see the true scope of their activity. That is a price to pay, but it is IMHO worth it, Those of us who support strong encryption shouldn't be disingenuous and deny that it exists; rather, we should be forthright about it. Frankly, strong encryption is out of the bag. You can roll a secure cypher by hashing a key with 0, then 1, then 2, and XORing that stream with your message.