...

Steve Schear wrote: I'm not a consitiutional scholar, but it seems to me that since the government has already classed crypto as arms via ITAR and since the I am guaranteed the right to bear arms I choose to bear the crypto of my choice as part of my arsonal.

Tom May wrote: I've argued since 1992 on Usenet and here that "crypto as arms" is a potentially dangerous tack to follow. (Others, including legal experts, have also argued this point.)

Given that it is well-established, whether we agree or not, that the USG may restrict private ownership of atom bombs, nerve gases, CBW weapons, machine guns, switchblade knives, nunchuk sticks, and various other "arms," the association of crypto with armaments is potentially *DISASTROUS*.

Unless we get the strong support of the gun lobby and NRA.

A far better strategy is to associate crypto with *speech*, which most people seem to think has stronger protection. And, truth be told, I view encrypted communications as a helluva lot more like a form of communication than I view it as a cousin to my Heckler & Koch .45 USP.

In my view, equating crypto with armaments is exactly what the USG would like to see happen. This legitimizes their control of crypto.

I agree. However, if the forces of evil attempt to get GAK mandidated or begin arresting or harrassing those who would provide strong crypto it might an option. -- Steve