<i>There needs to be much wider awareness of this for any serious changes to happen on a wide scale. Problem is, how do you accomplish that?</i><p>Don&#x27;t posit it as a privacy vs law-enforcement thing. At its heart it&#x27;s game-theory.<p>Let me get a bit abstract first so we can tighten up the lingo. If we start with Cogito ergo sum - the concept that all we know as an individual is that we think and everything else is up for debate, we can also posit that when it comes to intentions we can only know our own. Some people don&#x27;t even know what they want...I digress. Back to game theory.<p>You as an individual have no idea what someone else&#x27;s intentions are. You can trust them, but you can&#x27;t be sure exactly what they want or what they will do.<p>Do you provide all electronic communications; spoken, typed, captured by an imaging sensor, read, downloaded, listened to, purchased etc to a body that has the greatest capacity to control you? If yes...<p>Do you trust all politicians, bureaucrats, and law-enforcement officers? The answer is probably <i>no</i> but we&#x27;ve gotten nowhere because the majority of people have cognitive dissonance when it comes concepts involving technology and privacy intermingling.<p>So can we posit it like a game of cards? If you had the choice to show 2 cards from your hand, 1 card or 0 cards, which would you choose - knowing that the other player has put down none?<p>I&#x27;m sure there&#x27;s a better analogy but I thought I&#x27;d put the game-theory idea out there so others can take a stab at creating an effective metaphor.