[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
