I'm sure the "Briefing" is quite impressive and it includes several strong arguments for government surveillance. There are bound to be more than a few kids that are alive today thanks to eavesdropping and the quick thinking of folks in FBI, NSA et al. That being said, I'm sure that there is also an "anti-Briefing" that can be given that illustrates that the huge cost of redesigning the phone system and forcing businesses and people to operate without protection. Here are some examples from the recent press that I think are good arguments for why strong crypto won't change the status quo. 1) A recent video tape on the news showed some convicted bad guy doing drugs and having sex with one of his convict buddies. They just happened to be in a side room of the prison that had a video camera. Some people tried to make political hay by saying that the prisons were really coddling the prisons too much. But prisons already have all of the enforcement tools that the police wish they had. They can strip search people without a warrant. They can read all of their mail and listen in to all conversations with visitors who aren't their lawyer. But there are still drugs in the prison. So how do they expect to eradicate drugs in the real world? 2) There are persistent rumors that Tim McVeigh et al were under some sort of surveillance. I know of no facts to back this up. I've heard some people say that they feel it was part of a sting operation that failed because the bomb actually went off. Who knows? But the World Trade Center bombers were under surveillance and that failed. This doesn't show that surveillance is bad, it just shows that it isn't perfect. 3) Pachinko machines and cell phones have both used weak crypto. Whoops. The gangsters figured out how to break the crippled system. There must more examples but I'm typing from memory. The point is that full surveillance rarely stops crime altogether, but it may make a dent. The question is whether it is worth redesigning our phone system and computer networks to introduce even more weakness just because the police can use this weakness. Some might argue that if weak crypto can save one child's life than it is worth it. This is a strong, sentimental argument, but it really doesn't reflect the reality of the tradeoff. We could spend a lot more money on airlines, trains and cars and save a few kids lives, but the cost could be phenomenal. The fact is that government enforced weak crypto is a tradeoff. We pay for the ease of the police surveillance because we make life simpler for crooks who make their living eavesdropping and circumventing security systems. The big question is whether the tradeoff is worth it.