too.

i.e. Cypherpunk Tim May's succinct complaint "It's wrong when I'm a felon
under an ever increasing number of laws".

Because government will lean on you with it:

In the AA BBS case, a company delivering raunchy porn or just nude pictures,
the government threat included prosecuting the person's wife too. Just like
it could in the private home raid scenario above. Only now with a new club
to swing. It was the main reason the husband agreed to plead guilty. He
wouldn't risk his wife to a trial just to protect his own rights.

The government will use every available tool to menace crypto users.

NYT, quoting a Supreme Court member on police use of legislative language:
     "They will take it as far as they can."

They have absolutely no scruples, often.

In the AA BBS case, the Feds PURPOSELY PULLED graphics legal in California
into hick Tennessee, and succeeded in jailing the CA owner.

Wow. The Feds must have been drooling when Congress passed the CDA.

In addition, they sent UNSOLICITED real child porno to the owner, and charged
him with possession of child porno.

No code of ethics or conduct.

No scruples.

Predatory pinheads.

----

*   "WHITE HOUSE IS SET TO EASE ITS STANCE ON INTERNET SMUT"
*   The New York Times, By John M. Broder, June 16 1997
*   
*   Administration officials, in a draft report dated June 4 1997, have been
*   quietly fashioning a new communications policy that leaves most regulation
*   of the Internet to industry and people themselves, due to an expected
*   repudiation of the Communications Decen