M > M >This seems counterproductive. PGP should not be portrayed as a tool M >for those that most Americans consider antisocial. M > M >M Carling M > A quote from pgpdoc1.doc: "If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. Intelligence agencies have access to good cryptographic technology. So do the big arms and drug traffickers. So do defense contractors, oil companies, and other corporate giants. But ordinary people and grassroots political organizations mostly have not had access to affordable "military grade" public-key cryptographic technology. Until now." Now Phil wrote PGP in part so that "grassroots" political organizations could have strong crypto. SOF is a "grassroots political organization." It happens that some people don't like SOF. It happens that some other people think that the organizations that Phil was thinking of when he wrote PGP are unamerican communist front organizations who should be on the Attorney General's List (if we still had an Attorney General's List)(if we still had an Attorney General). Tastes differ. The point of cypherpunks is that everyone (even FBI agents) should have strong crypto if they want it. I know that Phil feels a personal sense of embarrassment at being adopted by all sorts of nut groups (including ourselves) and he has pleaded for stories of "worthy PGP use." Standards of worthiness will vary. DCF Who, as it happens, *is* a member of an organization on the Attorney General's list. --- WinQwk 2.0b#1165