Before people get carried away it is important to realise that the EU institutions do not map onto US ones. The EU Commission does not have an analogue in the US system. It is an unelected group of beureacrats whose purpose is (roughly speaking) to harmonize EU law. It does not have legislative powers in its own right, nor does it necessarily have much influence. The EU lawmaking process is essentially that the Commision drafts some suggestions and passes them onto the council of ministers which accepts, rejects or ammends them. If there is unanimous agreement in the concil of ministers (majority vote on a restricted number of issues) then a directive is issued which the national parliaments must then enact into law. The limited scope of EU laws is critical, the EU is much like the US prior to the civil war, the member states are sovereign. Thus there is nothing the EU Commission can do to prevent member states outlawing crypto, nor for that matter can they force them to allow it. They can assist in forming EU wide regulations either way however. The real importance of the EU report is probably that it denies the statements made by the Freeh et. al. claiming that US alies in Europe are in favour of GAK. Despite the fact that there has never been any public demonstration of a commitment the administration has disingenuously claimed that it has the support of and indeed is being pressured to take its stance on export controls by other countries. Needless to say it is unconvincing to be told 'trust me' by someone who is clearly peddling a lie. Few people can prove it is a lie because few people can claim to have the personal access to European politicians the administration can. I know UK politics well enough to know that the current parliament is not going to back any increase of powers for a security service that many members of the government was used politically by the Conservatives. It would be like the nation of Islam calling for arbitrary arrest powers for the police. Phill