The usual issue: That if a foreign-originated product even appears to be a standard (so far, none have been), and includes strong crypto, then the NSA and other agencies will simply change the rules. Thus, if extremely strong crypto from "Netscape-Zurich" starts to have a significant market presense in the U.S., then some law will be passed to restrict it.

But what would they restrict? The use of strong crypto between two domestic points, or strong crypto where one end is within the US and the other without? We already have the former -- wouldn't it be hard for them to take it away? Especially if the software already has a large installed base, which is your premise? I'm not denying that there are people in the NSA who would want to react that way, but I don't think they'd be able to pull it off. It is true that the National Security establishment has a lot of power and influence here. But there are other groups with power as well, and the security types don't have the ability to do whatever they want without regard to the opinions and interests of those other groups. I think America's commercial interests will carry the day. The NSA isn't capable of achieving its objective, which is to preserve passive surveillance. It doesn't matter what the rules are or what Congress passes. It's over. There are a lot of smart people in the NSA, and some of them have to know that. Big companies like Netscape, Sun, Microsoft, and IBM/Lotus, on the other hand, will almost certainly achieve their objectives if they win the political fight. They'll make buckets of money selling crypto software abroad. And if they lose the fight, they're going to be handing big opportunities to foreign competitors. Who's going to fight harder? You add to that the fact that impartial observers will say, for the most part, that Netscape's right and the NSA is wrong, and the tremendous interest world wide in creating a trustworthy net based infrastructure for commerce, and the NSA starts to look a good poker player with a bad hand. They used to say that "what's good for General Motors is good for the country." A lot of people still feel that way about our biggest companies. When they get their acts together and stare down the NSA in a block, it will all be over. I feel a little strange about constantly playing the corporate shill here. I'm not a corporate person, and all of the companies I talk about here would probably find me unsuitable for employment. I'm certainly not going to participate in the crypto profits that they'll realize. My interest in this isn't the same as Netscape's. But it's going to be Netscape that pushes this thing over the top. Crypto is a big tent issue. Some people want the restrcitions eased so they can make money, some are afraid of the government, some want to protect civil liberties, some love the math and technology, and others just want to thumb their noses at Mr. Freeh. I want to see censorship become technically infeasible. There's very little popular support for that position among the general public; everyone wants censorship as long as they agree with the censor. Arguing for crypto from the vantage point of a civil libertarian is pointless. Even here on cypherpunks the bill of rights doesn't get much respect. The point is that the only guy in the big tent with any clout at all is the corporate manager. When the kids get together on the street and protest net censorship, does anyone care? Is a militia movement argument going to play in Peoria? (I think those are counter productive -- at times I've been scared enough by them to re-examine my own position.) I agree with Noam Chomsky when he says that corporate interests dominate our politics, but I also agree with Milton Friedman when he says its for the best. We should focus our efforts on energizing corporate America for the fight. The best way to do that is to demonstrating to customers that exportable security is nothing more than snake oil under the current rules. Another way it is to explain to people -- journalists and managers alike -- exactly why the current rules are bad for business. Lets develop and popularize arguments against the NSA position, not radical or esoteric arguments, but the kind of arguments that sensible people who go to work and read the paper every day can repeat to one another when they talk about politics. If we can get this stuff onto the editorial page of the WSJ -- which is where it belongs -- we'll be in spitting distance of a victory.