Inspiration for this paper came from a recent public forum debate event. The resolution was, “The United States federal government should require technology companies to provide lawful access to encrypted communication.” During the debate, we discussed whether the ability to prosecute criminals was worth the risk of a single point of failure created by a key escrow, endangering the digital privacy rights of the public. As I brainstormed examples, my research overlapped with the history of encryption policy. I realized that the ongoing debate between American citizens—who expressed their opinions through political advocacy, lobbying, and technological evaluations—and the government—which revealed its motives through programs, laws, and campaigns—necessitated political advancements to protect civil liberties, demonstrating a cycle of reaction and reform.
I conducted my research by identifying historical events and questions that arose from my debate notes. For instance, regarding evidence for government initiatives to access digital information, I initially came across Edward Snowden’s leak of the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance programs. Diving further into historical developments, I researched technological innovations in the 1990s that provided context for the emergence of cryptography in relation to the Cold War, eventually stumbling upon the “Crypto Wars.”
To create this project, I began by making notecards for primary and secondary sources. I compiled quotes, page numbers, and summaries from every piece of information I read. The major secondary source I used was Privacy on the Line: The Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption by Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau. I also used primary sources such as the Cypherpunk’s Manifesto, the White House’s release of the Clipper Chip, and technology whitepapers. I chose a research paper because the extensive online documentation favored a format that could maximize my exploration of the evidence.
Today, cryptography, the field of encoded information technology, is often associated with communication apps such as WhatsApp and Telegram, where the small “this chat is end-to-end encrypted” text box at the top of each chat ensures that no third-party institution, neither the government nor the tech company, can access your private messages. Yet, applications of cryptography actually predate the technological advancements of the 1900s. “From the first version of Egyptian hieroglyphics to the biblical Daniel’s deciphering of handwriting on the wall. It has been a passion and practice of some of history’s notable figures.”
In the 1790s, Thomas Jefferson, the father of American Cryptography, supposedly invented the wheel cipher, an iron spindle with cylindrical wooden pieces that encoded sensitive letters. In the late 20th century, computer scientists revolutionized cryptography’s role in the technological landscape. With individuals gaining access to the World Wide Web, the growing use of personal computers, and the introduction of mobile phones, securing information became a crucial issue for both the academic and commercial worlds. “Previously obscure and arcane,” cryptography was core to the development of software such as Pretty Good Privacy and Cypherpunk-affiliated programs, protecting the digital privacy of individuals.
To understand the rationale behind both sides of the Crypto Wars, it is necessary to examine the US government's longstanding unease with cryptography being placed in the hands of the general public. The Cold War set the stage for “information warfare”, which is the use of information to cripple a country by “decrypting its code messages, seizing its financial centers, and disabling communication hubs.” Governments and militaries worried that unrestricted access to strong encryption gave foreign governments an advantage in acquiring sensitive information.
Thus, on June 30, 1976, the US government passed the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). Although classified as a “munition” used by governments and militaries, cryptography soon became a tool that people who were concerned with privacy could use to protect their communications. On June 6, 1991, Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), a program originally written by Philip Zimmerman, was released to the American public. In reaction, the US government turned to a “scheme” to secure its control over the flow of digital information.
On April 16, 1993, the President announced a new initiative, the Clipper Chip, a voluntary program aimed to “improve the security and privacy of telephone communications while meeting the legitimate needs of law enforcement.” The Clipper Chip involved building a Law Enforcement Access Field (LEAF) into each voice and data message, allowing the government to decrypt telecommunications “when access to the telecommunications is lawfully authorized.”
The NSA and FBI Director Louis Freeh asserted that wiretapping by the government was “crucial to protecting the country against crime." The US government fervently promoted the initiative, claiming that the Clipper Chip would help companies protect proprietary information and the privacy of personal phone conversations. While the government presented the Clipper Chip as a reliable protection of safety, critics saw it as a dangerous expansion of state surveillance power.
The idea that the government could gain access to private messages incited massive public outrage. The Cypherpunks, a group of computer scientists whose mission was to defend the privacy of the people, initiated “a guerrilla campaign to infect the media and the general population with the anti-Clipper message.” They distributed laptop stickers that read, “Big Brother Inside,” an allusion to George Orwell’s 1984.
While the Cypherpunks relied on satire, the Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) took a formal approach: lobbying. In their letter to President Clinton, they argued Clipper Chip faced “nearly unanimous opposition” and warned it would discourage innovation. Together, public pressure and institutional criticism weakened the credibility of the Clipper Chip.
Computer scientists argued that Clipper's algorithm and LEAF were technically flawed. This was confirmed by Matt Blaze, who revealed that a “rogue device” could appear to be Clipper-compliant but secretly ignore the escrow system. Blaze further discussed the Clipper Chip’s economic disadvantages, claiming it took something that was becoming cheap and turned it back into something expensive.
In 1996, Daniel J. Bernstein, a graduate student at UC Berkeley, filed a lawsuit against the US government. He believed that the vague terms of ITAR placed an “unconstitutional prior restraint” on cryptography, arguing that publishing his source code and academic paper was political expression protected by the First Amendment. Eventually, the court ruled that “source code is speech,” a massive victory that facilitated the lifting of encryption export restrictions.
Pressure from the private and public sectors proved that the Clipper Chip standards were unrealistic. In 1999, the White House backed down as the Clinton administration reclassified most commercial encryption. On January 14, 2000, the Federal government issued a document which "amended the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to allow the export and reexport of any encryption commodity or software." The Clipper Chip was officially withdrawn.
The tension between freedom and security continued into the 21st century. In 2000, the NSA invested billions in a secret campaign called Bullrun. Later, the 2016 Feinstein-Burr bill attempted to require tech companies to provide information “in an intelligible format.” The bill never passed because civil liberty groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), voiced strong opposition. This familiar cycle made clear that the Crypto Wars never truly ended.
“Privacy only extends so far as the cooperation of one's fellows in society.”
The US government’s attempt to gatekeep encryption through the Clipper Chip ignited collective defiance. Social and political advocacy during the Crypto Wars laid the foundation for encryption technology becoming public. Cryptography was redefined from a restricted munition to a protected form of expression under the law of the land.