I just finished reading "For the President's Eyes Only", a book by Christopher Andrew. It describes the uses that US presidents have made of intelligence and intelligence organizations, from George Washington to George Bush. What caught my eye first was a quotation by David Kahn that says: "This is the most important book ever written about American intelligence." The cypherpunks relevance (Besides the David Kahn quote) is the frequent mention of NSA decrypts and SIGINT. The frequency that nations and individuals have used (and apparently continue to use) breakable encryption is incredible. The intelligence that has been derived by breaking them is worth a great deal, in dollars and maybe lives. This book has made me understand a bit, why a government might try to limit strong cryptography. I suppose I tended to look upon ITAR restrictions on cryptography as a sign of a power-hungry, self-agrandizing, government that has lost track of the fact that its legitimacy depends on protecting the blessings of liberty for its citizens. That's partly true, but there's more to it than that. After reading "For the President's Eyes Only", I can understand that many in government believe that they are protecting the public by outlawing cryptography. After careful reconsideration, I still believe in strong free crypto, but it made me think very hard. I think that some on this list and in sci.crypt should be ashamed of their ad hominem attacks in an area where reasonable people disagree. The crypto-game is being played "for keeps". Someday, all crypto may be too strong to break, but for right now, many "bad guys" (and whatever your philosophy, I bet you can find some) use weak crypto, and this allows the US Govt. to know more about what goes on in the world. As long as Uncle Sam keeps his finger on a nuclear trigger, I can see a strong case that knowing what he's doing and not getting too surprised are (mostly) good things. There will be a price to pay when everyone uses strong crypto. There will be great benefits derived, as well. It will be very expensive, but worth it. If we want to make it happen sooner, we should understand (and respect) our opponents in this debate. Rick F. Hoselton (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others)