Two points re the spy satellite thread. First, spy satellites want to be close to what they are looking at, so they can see it better. That means they are generally in low orbits, and low orbits are fast orbits. Typical speeds are on the order of 10,000 mph. This means that any given spot is in view of a particular satellite for only a few minutes on each pass, and due to the earth's rotation it is hard to pass repeatedly over the same spot frequently. This means you need a large number of satellites in order to provide much coverage, and even then you will probably get snapshots at an interval of hours at best (I don't know how many satellites are flying). This is OK for military bases where you are looking at construction, ships, and other large equipment, but it is not at all adequate for tracking the movement of terrorists. Secondly, any technology which did allow the government to surveil us well enough to track the physical movements and meetings of terrorists would be far more of a threat than any Clipper chip! Offering satellite surveillance as an alternative to Clipper jumps from the frying pan into the fire, IMO. Hal