First, would like to comment that some people do not like some of my beliefs. Tough. Do try to be honest and consistant about them. One of them is that while the US is imperfect, it is better than anything else I have seen (and have seen more than a few) and has the potential to remain great. Do believe in the "sovereign right of nations" to be a fact. Also believe in human rights personally but do not expect governments to agree merely because I say so. Some favor direct action. I prefer the "theater of the absurd" & have found that most people are able to recognize absurdity when they see it, particularly if carried to extreems. Most of life is absurd to those who are able to really enjoy it. The Leahy bill is flawed in two areas. Sent a message with proposed wording to Sen. Leahy via his web page but have not gotten a response. Have a bad habit of reading laws without thought since this is how LEA and prosecutors are told to enforce them - as written, not as believed. If an area is vague, a court is required to decide how to interpret it, not LEA. If badly written *everyone* loses. At the same time am pragmatic enough to accept the idea that it will have no effect unless it passes and to be passed today it must have something like the criminalization statement. The goal here should not be to throw it out since that would simply cause the whole bill to fail, but to word it carefully enough that it satisfies those who reguire laws while being narrow enough to avoid exploitation. IMNSHO the best way to do that is to require that: 1) A felony occured (curiously misdemeanors were ommitted) and 2) That the individual to be charged was an active participant (before, during, or after the fact) and 3) That encryption was used in furtherance. Note: that in the US (1) and (2) seem sufficient for a criminal charge to be brought, so does (3) really add anything except words or possibly severity ? Seizure seems to be a great concern of the group with the point of the Bemmis Pontiac being brought up. For someone providing a free remailer, that is a valid concern since the first question a court might ask is "what was the motivation". I suspect that someone providing a remailer and charging a reasonable fee to all who might want to use the service might be in a much better position (not a lawyer so not allowed to know). One indicator might be easy to check: Has there ever been a seizure involving a rental car (Hertz, Avis, etc.) and if so, what was the disposition ? Warmly, Padgett