It's times like these that make 'cynic' seem to be synonymous with 'realist'. No sooner can you start to worry about civil rights infringement than you find more cases of it being proposed than you can count. How is it that the notion of preventing honest citizens from using encryption somehow increases our freedom from attack? Does Congress truly believe that terrorists who will stop at nothing will make sure to use only legal, government-sanctioned software with backdoors neatly in place? I think not. In that case, will it be illegal to produce such software (not sanctioned by the U.S. government) in the U.S? Again, I think not. What happens if you make some anyway? Or if you link to a site that provides it? Ask Dmitri Sklyarov or the head of the 2600 site. They're finding out right now. As Perry Metzger (of <a href="http://www.wasabisystems.com/">Wasabi Systems</a>) is quoted in the article: <span class="quote">"We must remember throughout that you cannot preserve freedom by eliminating it."</span> And also Matt Blaze of ATT: <span class="quote">"I believed, and continue to believe, that the arguments against widely available cryptography, while certainly advanced by people of good will, did not hold up against the cold light of reason and were inconsistent with the most basic American values."</span> <a href="http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46816,00.html">Read More</a>