georgemw@speakeasy.net wrote :

On 5 Jan 2002, at 7:58, John Young wrote:

...

This crypto demonization may well intensify as investigations proceed into the government, military and intelligence failure to prevent 911. Whether crypto actually played any role in the attack may be seen as unimportant so long as a convincing story can be promoted that it must have been.

I don't think anyone claims that it "must have been". Rather, the idea that it might have been, or might be useful for future terrorists, is sufficient to demonize it. Similarly, the 9/11 terrorists didn't use guns, but everyone knows terrorists use guns, The idea of cryptography as munitions isn't just metaphor or, if it is, it's a really really good metaphor.

[chop]

George

I think "might have been" and "might be" are close enough for government work. Have we reached the point where a local fibbie can state "uses encryption" as probable cause or whatever deficient standard they use these days before inserting a tap? Mike