Good has two opposites: bad and well-meant. (Arnulf Weingarten)

Privacy on the net is in no way different to the privacy "off-line".

Whether I write a letter with a keyboard or a pen makes no difference, the content is meant for one person alone. Where is the difference to reading my s-mail and reading my e-mail? I see none.

I also see no difference between the flatfoot observing every step I make and the flatfoot who analyzes every link I visit. Two groups are attempting to break my and your privacy: some governments and some companies. Casual eavesdroppers present a risk to your privacy,too, albeit a small one.

"Seems the law's on my ass ev'ry time I stick it out of the door" (Alice Cooper)

Governments justify their ban on encryption (at least the kind without a keyhole) with crime-prevention. That's either faulty logic, a deliberate lie, or a lack of knowledge.

If encryption was prohibited, every criminal in the world would turn to the only unbreakable encryption: jargon. Even more, constant surveillance doesn't prevent a crime. If anything, it makes persecution easier. In my eyes the violation of privacy, which I perceive to be a human right (habeas corpus), is not justified by this.

Nobody prohibits encryption (or the use of an envelope) for s-mail. Of course not, even those say who call for law and order loudest. Yet in a harmless looking envelope child-pornography and drugs can be sent. I even remember adds for adult toys who prided themselves to send the things "discretely packaged", so that neither a postman nor the curious neighbours would suspect.

Where is the difference to encrypted transfer on the net? I don't see any. It prevents the casual eavesdropper from tapping my mail, not the "determined and resourceful attacker" such as a "government agency" (Philip R. Zimmerman).

Still, even the "determined and resourceful attacker" would have quite a Sysiphos' work before him. It takes time to decrpyt a PGP-key - a simple key of 56 Bytes needs to be run for months to be decrypted. According to Distributed Net it took 250 days to decrypt a mere 56Bit-key. They are still working on the 64Bit :) By the way: if you have idle-times on your CPU (most people have), consider taking the challenge.

With such powerful encryption, wiretapping becomes difficult - no, not impossible. Of course, most governments like the idea to be able to listen in to most communications, even if they don't do it without justification. When you next time hear a politician using "prevent crime" and "ban encryption" in the same breath, question her/his real motives.

If somebody is suspected of crime, our society already has made exemptions from the right to keep one's privacy: a judge can give permission to tap lines or pass a search-warrant. Those means are all we need to persecute any crime. Was an email the proof needed on a suspected's computer, the information contained would be useless to the suspect, had (s)he not the key somewhere. This parallels to a locked drawer and I don't see the necessity of changing the law.

By now at least my own government has seen the light. If you don't know it: Germany is a federal democracy, and I know of one state to have joined the "Blue Ribbon"-campaign for undisturbed privacy. The Bundesregierung supports the use of PGP and provides a detailed "PGP for newbies". For once I'm proud of them :)

"Operator says that's priviledged information and it ain't no business of mine" (Grateful Dead)

When Windows 95 was released, some people were embarassed of what Microsoft knew of them. Who registered Win95 on-line soon found out that not only information of the OS was sent, but also all other Microsoft products were "registered" in one go.

Intel had a serial-number wired into part of their CPUs that could be read from outside. Even though you were able to disable accessing the number by software, it could be "switched on" from outside again.

Quicken, a program for bookkeeping and on-line banking, ceases to work after a specified time (I believe it's after 30 uses and only for a certain release) if the program is not registered. Microsoft has thought loudly about the same for Office2000, I heard.

Cookies were thought to make surfing the WWW more comfortable, but they were soon abused to gather information of a (prospective) customer.

Only some examples of violated privacy. If the companies are to be believed, it's for ease of use and quicker response to the customer's needs. Well-meant, I'd say.

I can see that a company is interested in as much information as it can gather. It allows for better planning and thus cuts expenses. Advertising can be directed better. There's nothing of "ease of use" or "enhanced support" in this.

In some cases the information is the price you pay for so-called free services (such as webspace or email). At least you know (or should know) what you're doing.

If you're like me, you'd rather know what you're telling whom. I'd very much prefer not to let other people (or companies) know what products I buy or what services I order. Not out of paranoia, I don't expect any company to take over the world (although in the case of Microsoft I'm not so sure ;) ). I just hate spam and I want to decide whether I get contacted by a company and what ads I see.

There are some programs that can help you protect your privacy. You'll find them via the links-page.

I also included a link to Siemens' WebWasher. Since those "free" webspaces splatter desktops with ads, I prefer to cut them out whenever I feel like it.

The latest development is the use of so-called "Referrers". Those are strings that contain the URL of the site you last visited. The referrer is sent with every request for another page, so that your moves through the WWW can be monitored. Neat, huh? Webwasher 2.1.1 (the latest version by June 2000) takes care of them, too.

You can strengthen your privacy by the use of a proxy. There are multiple free ones on the net, do a search for them. I included one I found quite reliable with the Links.

"Heard it through the grapevine" (Creedence Clearwater Revival)

In the earlier days of telephones, not very long ago, it was quite possible to casually listen into other people's conversations. I myself remember times but 20 years ago that I could pick up and hear my neighbour talking. Of course, when our neighbours son got a computer, I could also pick up the line with my own set and see all he transmitted on (oh no, not _to_) my machine. Those were the days :) Of course I wouldn't have done it, that was a matter of honour - as with spoken conversation. There was no easy-to-use means to encrypt the transfer then.

When the first BBSs came up, the provider of the BBS had the technical means to read other's emails, but wouldn't have done it. The same for todays providers: of course they could read clear-text emails on their servers, but... Here any sysop (even today) I know shudders with revulsion and thinks of hitting everybody who accuses him of such a *beep* with a stick. At least. Honour, you know :)

Today so many people are on the net, that I can't trust any other person to have the same code of honour. I'd rather trust every person, but even if everybody can be trusted, there still is the point of shared resources, just like the old telephone-lines.

In the old days jargon was used to keep parents from overhearing our latest adventures. We were no criminals, we just took a day off at school or had a boyfriend or... Most parents wouldn't listen into our conversations, just as they wouldn't read our journals, but I know for sure that a friends parents didn't value their daughter's privacy as much. Which leads to the conclusion, that at least some children had and have to use encryption to keep it (have a look at the PGP-section).

Encryption of those contents you don't want to be public (as your mail) prevents this eavesdropping. To protect your own machine, you should consider using a firewall. I checked some so-called Desktop-Firewalls for Win, have a look at the reviews.