Maybe I missed part of the discussion, but IMHO y'all are missing the forest for the trees. The majority opinion seems to say that they recognise that reasonable people (and legal opinion) can differ about whether code is speech or is something more strictly "functional". But in Section [C], entitled "Concluding Comments", in the paragraph that begins with "Second, we note that ..", they go to no small effort to state that they are in broad agree- ment with the thesis that personal privacy is very much on the defensive these days. "[I]t is fair to say that never has our ability to shield our affairs from prying eyes been at such a low ebb." They expand upon this point to bring the Fourth Amendment into the discussion, and they conclude by stating that that "[I]t is important to point out that Bernstein's is a suit not merely concerning a small group of scientists laboring in an esoteric field, but also touches on the public interest broadly defined." I am not a lawyer, but here they would seem to be informing any subsequent review court that it would be unwise to focus too narrowly on the arguably technical issue of whether code is free speech or not. There was no clear precedent to guide them on this point, and so they broadened their considerations to encompass general public policy. Who was it that made this point to Congress a couple of years ago, that privacy is on the run, and that encryption serves to reclaim a bit of it for the average Joe, and generally keep the government out of people's business ? Was it Phil Karn ? I am pleased that the review court took note of this view. * * * And, just out of curiosity, who appointed Judges Fletcher and Bright ? I would like to see this in news reports, but I sup- pose this would require some genuiine research work on the part of reporters, and anyways it might remind people that certain recent Presidents, and one in particular, spoke libertarianism while implementing statism. In any case, when I hear marketing types complaining about the EU Data Privacy Directive, and how adoption of similar practices in the American market would screw up marketing as American busi- ness knows it, my response is: "Good". Best, Fred Baube -- F.Baube(tm) * Milosevic: "perfect knowledge of the G'town U. MSFS '88 * Serbs' irrational collective psychology" [EMAIL PROTECTED] * -- http://www.janes.com/defence/ +358 (40) 737 6934 * features/kosovo/milosevic.html #include <std_disclaimer.h>