Yet if I read you correctly earlier, you don't think the USG has the right to regulate those communications. Why the distinction ?

Okay, obviously I need to drop down a gear & explain *my* feelings: Part of the definition of a "sovereign nation" is to define and carry out both high and low justice over it's domain - the absolute right of a sovereign. Is not mentioned in the US constitution because it was a given. Further, the purpose of the US Constitution is to: a) define what the sovereign was (three branches - rock, scissors, & paper) b) set forth certain limitations on that sovereign ("Congress shall make no law...") c) define certain duties of the sovereign (regulation of foreign commerce...) (am simplifying so please bear with me) There are some things which for which the rationale is not apparent since the times have changed ("corruption of blood" is a "Congress shall not" that related back to English law of the time). What "Attainder" was is not mentioned since it was well understood. No this gets us back to the question: to me, "regulation of foreign commerce" has two elements - one is to prevent illegal commerce or traffic in goods that are contrary to "the public good". The other is to promote American trade and intrests overseas. The two go together and is the point I made at the NIST gathering in December. Quid pro quo. "Free speech" means that a citizen is free to speak (communicate) anthing, anytime, anywhere. This is the right guarenteed by the first amendment. This does not relieve the individual from being liable for the consequences of the exercise of "free speech". However, the government is under no obligation (though in the silly seventies it seemed that we were going that way) to aid or abet in the exercise of free speech. If it were properly and legally decided that communications with anon.penet.fi is against "national interest" then the sovereign has not only the "right" but the *duty* to block/monitor such communications. Now as to the second part of the question, I have never said that the conditions mentioned above could not legally exist (though I have my doubts about legality internally and between citizens - is part of the reasons American Corporations have never had a problem getting a license for use with foreign offices). What I said was that any such regulation would be impossible to enforce for two reasons: 1) While current crypto advertises its presence, crypto exists which is indestinguishable from random noise and would be impossible to prove was used. Further it would be necessary to specify what was not crypto (and the law frowns on negatives). Navaho, Basque, PKZIP, and EBCDIC are examples that fall readily to mind. 2) The second objection is more obscure but should be considered in places that lack our constitutional protections: given a message, any message, I can demonstrate a OTP or algorithm that will turn that into any message desired. Therefore just the existance of a message and a decrypt would be insufficient to prove the "chain" that one led from/to the other. Thus in the one case, I referring to the obligations/limitations that our constitution places on the US government (is what it is really about). In the other I was referring to what it is *possible* for the government to do without considering legality (if they can't, does not matter if legal). Does this clear up the confusion ? Warmly, Padgett ps just to add some more wood "any law that can not be demonstrated to be universally enforceable with the resources allocated should be repealed".