Sandy:

...

1. it is unconstitutional to put a crypto genie in a bottle in the first place. 2. it is unconstitutional to make laws against ringing crypto bells.

We do not disagree except neither of the metaphors I gave suggest anything about the "putting in the bag" part of the deal. In no way does either suggest a right, power or even ability of anyone to limit any freedom. They are mute on the subject. Their sole meaning is that one CAN'T undo what is already done. In the instant case, that means the wide-spread availability of strong crypto.

ability to use strong crypto is not "either or" but a matter of degree. the question is not "is strong crypto available", but, "how much harder would the NSA's peeping be if ITAR was relaxed? the real question is, do we have the right to use strong crypto, or don't we? if we don't then the government has the authority to regulate it to its heart's content, *regardless* of whether those laws are effective or not. cpunks seem to think that a govt can only have *effective* laws. but there is obviously no such constraint. I think we need to approach it from the point of view that we have the *right* to use strong crypto, and see if the supreme court agrees. hence I'm very interested in the bernstein etc. cases, which may be the ultimate breakthrough eventually.. there is no end to the blathering about genies, cats, or bells that can sway the govt, but a single supreme court decision can have a revolutionary effect. again I still think the genie/cat/bell metaphor is a disservice to the cause, but feel free to defy me. just one crackpot's opinion, YMMV