>Has such a scenario ever effectively protected citizens from government in the real world? Of course it has, unless you believe that all of our rights in the

>Has such a scenario ever effectively protected citizens from government in the real world? Of course it has, unless you believe that all of our rights in the U.S. are a sham, and are routinely violated in private by our government. No, it's not perfect and it never will be as long as humans are involved. But, there have to be definitions of right and wrong with associated penalties--in other words, laws. >well that's definitional, isn't it? That's my point. These things still exist. The fact that we continue to battle one-off hackers, groups, etc. and frequently lose should give us pause to consider whether this is really the cat-and-mouse posture we want to assume with the U.S. government. >It's hardly a reason to give up on trying to protect communications from "big brother". I don't have anything against taking prudent measures to protect our privacy in general. But, this idea that technical solutions will ultimately protect us from "big brother" is pure folly. Without the law on our side, we will lose.