People have been digging the background of the Council of Europe recommendations here in Finland. It has turned out that Finland was represented an assistant director of the Criminal Police who is known as a supporter of extremely broad powers for the police. At the meeting, he has apparently presented his personal opinion as the official opinion of Finland; later the Council unanimously decided to recommend banning strong crypto. I hear a representative from Norway had apparently tried to speak some sense at the meeting, but had quickly been quieted by the others. It has also turned out that there have been studies on legislating cryptography and related issues in Finland during the past two years, but without concrete plans. The officials in charge of these issues were not aware of what was happening in Strasburg, and what Finland apparently has presented there certainly does not represent a concensus within the government. Things appear to be developing in promising directions, but much more work is still needed until things are on the right track. I strongly urge people in other European countries to contact their government officials, the press, and use other possible channels to dig out what exactly was happening and why, and make the officials and politicians understand the other issues that are related (computer security, universal surveillance, ability of independent political groups to function, trade secrets, etc). Professors and other persons in expert positions are important sources of information to the government in the preparatory process, and you should provide the officials with experts to consult on the issues. At least here it has turned out that preparations were being carried out with very few independent experts, input coming almost exclusively from the law enforcement side. Tatu Ylonen <ylo@cs.hut.fi>