From: Timothy C. May If Microsoft or any other companies have already colluded with the national security establishments of the U.S. or other countries to limit strong crypto except where software key escrow is used, then attacks on these companies are justified. .......................................................................... My turn: oh, ppulllleeeeeze! :>) (this is a rather popular expression, lately). This is why I don't think that scenario is possible: Billg's favorite magazine is The Economist, he's inundated with free-market ideology; he's been willing to put up with all kinds of "guidance" from the world's regulatory agencies in order to bring the tools of software to places like China, where they could certainly use the industry for economic development and a few tools for communication. Not that he is the only one doing this, not that he isn't profiting by it. I myself would not be willing to tolerate the kinds of controls that software & other companies have to suffer in order to bring their products to these markets. But I can grant that it does the customers a benefit for these to have been made available to them, even if I know that I myself am revolted to consider the regulatory tests which must be passed in order to do this (something akin to airport drug check examinations). Maybe he's trying to save the world, I don't know. Would they have been on the list of those opposing Clipper and the export of crypto? I can't see where the company would contribute to the opposition on the one hand and then turn around and collaborate to put limits on strong crypto except as allowed by the government. It's a contradiction; I can't imagine that MS would go in that direction of accepting such an unsavory idea. It's absurd to think that MS would wish to offer its software and services to people all over the world, making it easier for them to get their work done and contribute to opportunities for developers therein to make an income, thus "empowering" them - freeing them to some extent, while on the other hand helping to put them under unwanted & unmanageable surveillance, thus putting them back into another miserable situation outside their control. The culture here is so unlike that concept, so unreserved, that this is why I find it difficult to accept that the interests of the individual's desire for control over their privacy would be set up for compromise - be made difficult to maintain - by secret agreements between the company's leadership & the MotherShip. I will belive it when I see it. And I'll sign it: How could I have doubted; Timothy C. May was right all along. I should have known better. Blanc [Gratituous Disclaimer: There isn't any way my employer could get me to say this.]