This might seem like a naive question, but I'm having a little trouble with the NSA'a logic... they are offering Clipper as an international standard, because an international standard is necessary. However, other forms of encryption will still be legally available. Clipper includes the "wiretapping" feature because the government has the right and the need to look into individual's private correspondence in select circumstances. However, the NSA recognizes that anyone who wants to encode information in ways that can't be wiretapped will be able to do so cheaply and easily (according to their statement in the New York Times piece). Assuming we take the NSA at its word (i.e. that Clipper is only meant to be a voluntary standard , and is not being introduced as an initial step towards a mandatory standard with "wiretapping" capabilities), then why does it make sense to introduce Clipper, rather than go with something like PGP, which has become a defacto international standard already?