What is not clear in Schneier's several critiques of crypto weaknesses is what will be made of them to advance the burgeoning interests of law enforcement and the compsec industry in cybercrime control measures. While it may not be Bruce's intent to provide support for "the legitimate interests of law enforcement and industry" to combat "cybercriminality," what does appear to be evolving from the interests of the compsec industry is a close working relationship with the prime consumers of their services and products -- especially with the privitazation and melding of natsec and domsec. No doubt this is a carryover from the traditional close relationship between compsec and comsec researchers, developers and producers with government. Still, is there no alternative to giving government and corporations first, if not exclusive, choice on the best products and services, or contrarity, criminalizing activities and programs which do not succumb to government and corporate lobbying/purchasing persuasion (covert arm-twisting; sweetheart contracts; favorable standards, regulations, exceptions, etc.)? Count on one hand those who have resisted the lure and pressure to serve the nation as they serve their own interests. Count them stigmatized, broke, "renegades," outlaws, pitiful once-weres who lost touch with reality. Count those who are realistic as manifold, patriots, speakers at the best conclaves, propounders of sound advice to the wayward, reminders of what they've learned on the way is no longer true, award winners, celebrities with swelling bank accounts -- so long as the archy line is toed. Now, none of this applies to Bruce's evolving computer security body of work, which is most impressive. It's just not clear what will evolve as Counterpane takes more of his time and effort. What is clear is that cryptoanarchy, or or broader cyberanarchy, is not in his interests, any more than it is in government's, except as a bugaboo. Cybercrime begins with criminalizing digital information, that is, to regulate who gets access to private secrets, who runs the protection rackets: "don't trust your computer" is the next step after "don't trust the Internet." Confidence in both requires the assurance services of who? Ah yes, I see.