In fact, this is a point I am curious about. IANAL, but the case of Bernstein v. United States, while mooted before it could come to a true conclusion, seems t

In fact, this is a point I am curious about. IANAL, but the case of Bernstein v. United States, while mooted before it could come to a true conclusion, seems to demonstrate that there is legal plausibility to the argument that publishing source code of "dangerous" systems is protected by the First Amendment. While cryptography is less immediately harmful than some of the things prohibited in this case, the circumstances still seem pretty similar to me; and if these rules were overturned on such grounds, I cannot say I would be all that upset, as such a decision would likely also imply protection for a lot of stuff I like more than this. That said, when you consider things like Stuxnet, which physically destroyed industrial facilities, I'd say the idea that malware can be a weapon is harder to dismiss these days than in teh past. Admittedly, most zero-day exploits do not have so close an analogy, but in the wrong hands they can certainly help put people in physical danger. In any case, surveillance is hardly something the 'hacker community' is thrilled about - as per the zeitgeist in this forum, at least...