So why pick specifically on cryptography? Why not increase penalties for criminals who in their crimes are found to have used:
* computers; * pagers; * cellular phones; * Casio watches with multiple alarms; * Cars with power windows; * Velcro-fastening tennis shoes; * Gore-Tex jackets; * Ibuprofen pain relievers; * Fat-free ice cream;
Why don't we stick to the topic? Do you have an intelligent reply or are you going to shoot your mouth off? Or Maybe you can share something better with us, all knowing and wise one.
Aaron
His was the most intelligent reply I've seen. Why don't you answer the question instead of evading it? What is special about cryptography that makes its use in a crime a Bad Thing, whereas the use of, say, a toaster, is not? Attempts to punish the tools instead of the crime make as much sense and are as unsuccessful as treating an infection-caused fever with aspirin instead of treating the infection itself. -- Lee Daniel Crocker /o)\ "Vast amounts of unused information ultimately lcrocker@netcom.com \(o/ become a kind of pollution." Magic Edge: CROCK --Al Gore