Hacking Culture & The Cypherpunks
The Angry Mathematicians Who Tried to Save Privacy Before Anyone Knew It Was Gone
In 1993, a group of cryptographers decided that the only way to protect human freedom in the digital age was to flood the world with unbreakable codes — and they were right about almost everything.
The Idea
Before surveillance capitalism had a name, before anyone was worrying about data brokers or government backdoors, a loose network of programmers, mathematicians, and libertarian firebrands saw exactly where the internet was heading. They called themselves cypherpunks — a deliberate mashup of 'cipher' and 'cyberpunk' — and in 1993, Eric Hughes published their founding document: 'A Cypherpunk's Manifesto.' It is one of the most lucid pieces of political writing produced by the tech world, and almost nobody outside that world has read it. The core argument is deceptively simple: privacy is not the same as secrecy. Hughes drew a sharp distinction between the two. Secrecy is hiding something shameful. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal yourself — to choose what you share, with whom, and when. Without that power, he argued, you cannot have genuine autonomy. You are always performing for an audience you cannot fully see. The manifesto's most radical claim was that you cannot rely on governments or corporations to grant you privacy. They have structural incentives to erode it. So the cypherpunks proposed a different solution: mathematics. Specifically, strong cryptography — encryption so robust that no institution, however powerful, could break it without your cooperation. Their slogan was blunt: 'Cypherpunks write code.' Not petitions. Not lobbying. Code.
In the World
To understand why the manifestos felt so urgent, you need to know about the Clipper Chip — a piece of hardware the US government proposed mandating in all telecommunications devices in 1993. The chip would encrypt your communications, yes, but with a catch: the government would hold a spare key. Every call, every message, could be decrypted by federal authorities whenever they deemed it necessary. Officials called it 'key escrow.' The cypherpunks called it a skeleton key to everyone's private life. The backlash was fierce and came almost entirely from this small, scattered community. AT&T researcher Matt Blaze published a paper demonstrating a fundamental flaw in the Clipper protocol itself — a technical takedown so precise it was essentially unanswerable. Meanwhile, Phil Zimmermann had already released PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) a year earlier, a free, strong encryption tool that anyone could download. The government tried to prosecute Zimmermann for exporting a 'munition' — at the time, strong cryptography was legally classified as a weapon — and the case became a cause célèbre. It was eventually dropped. The Clipper Chip was dead by 1996. The cypherpunks had won a battle, though not the war. The tools they built — and the arguments they made — seeded everything from Tor to Signal to, eventually, Bitcoin. Julian Assange was on their mailing list. So was a pseudonymous figure named Satoshi Nakamoto.
Why It Matters
The cypherpunk manifestos are worth reading today not as historical curiosities but as diagnostic tools. Every anxiety they named in the early 1990s — about surveillance infrastructure, about the asymmetry between institutions and individuals, about the gap between legal privacy and actual privacy — has since been confirmed many times over by events: the Snowden revelations, the Cambridge Analytica scandal, the routine commercial harvesting of location and behavioural data. What the manifestos offer is a framework for thinking about who controls information, and why that control is a political question as much as a technical one. The cypherpunks were not naive utopians; Hughes explicitly acknowledged that cryptography alone could not solve everything. But they insisted that giving individuals genuine tools for self-protection — not just the promise of protection — was a moral necessity. The question they leave you with is still live: in a world where the infrastructure of daily life runs through systems you do not own and cannot inspect, what does it actually mean to have privacy? And is code still the answer?
A Question to Ponder
If privacy requires active effort — learning tools, making choices, accepting inconvenience — how many people will ever really have it, and what does that mean for the idea that it is a universal right?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable