Hacking Culture & The Cypherpunks
The Government Tried to Ban Mathematics — and Lost
In the 1990s, the United States classified strong encryption as a munition — the same legal category as a fighter jet or a missile — and made it illegal to export without a licence.
The Idea
The Crypto Wars were not a metaphor. They were a decade-long legal and political battle over who gets to keep secrets: individuals, or the state. At the heart of it was a deceptively simple question — should encryption powerful enough to defeat government surveillance be freely available to ordinary people? The US government's position was that strong cryptography in civilian hands was a national security threat. The NSA had long enjoyed the ability to intercept communications, and the spread of public-key encryption — the kind that could scramble a message so thoroughly that even a supercomputer would need millions of years to crack it — threatened to go dark on them permanently. What made this moment genuinely strange is that the government's proposed solution was mathematical restriction. They wanted to control who could use which algorithms, and how strong those algorithms could be. Export regulations capped encryption key lengths at 40 bits — weak enough for intelligence agencies to break, which was precisely the point. The cypherpunks, a loose collective of cryptographers, hackers, and libertarian technologists who communicated over a mailing list from 1992 onwards, saw this clearly: a government controlling cryptography was a government controlling the possibility of private thought in a digital world. Their response was not protest — it was publication. If math was a weapon, they would hand it to everyone.
In the World
The most audacious act of the Crypto Wars was also one of its most elegant. In 1995, a graduate student at Berkeley named Adam Back — later the inventor of Hashcash, a precursor to Bitcoin's proof-of-work — printed the RSA encryption algorithm on a plain cotton T-shirt. Not as a stunt, exactly, but as a pointed legal argument: if this code is a munition, then wearing it makes you an arms dealer. Exporting the T-shirt would be a federal crime. People wore them. Some deliberately travelled internationally in them. But the defining act of defiance was Phil Zimmermann's. In 1991, he released PGP — Pretty Good Privacy — a free, powerful encryption program he had written himself and distributed over the internet. The government opened a criminal investigation that lasted three years. Zimmermann's response, once the case was clearly going nowhere, was to publish the PGP source code as a book. Books, unlike software, were protected by the First Amendment. You could legally export a book containing code that you could not legally export as software. Anyone could buy it, scan the pages, and compile it. The case was dropped in 1996. By then, the argument had shifted irrevocably. Encryption was spreading faster than any regulation could contain it, and the commercial internet — which needed HTTPS to exist — made the government's position economically untenable. The Crypto Wars ended not with a treaty but with a quiet acknowledgement that mathematics, once published, cannot be uninvented.
Why It Matters
Most people alive today have never experienced the internet without encryption. Every time your browser shows a padlock, every time a message app promises end-to-end security, you are living inside a victory that was not inevitable — it was fought for by a relatively small number of people who understood, before most, what was at stake. The Crypto Wars established something important: that the architecture of communication is political. Who can read your messages is not a technical question with a neutral answer; it is a question about power. The cypherpunks were not uniformly sympathetic figures — some were zealots, some naive about what privacy would enable — but their core intuition proved correct. Weak encryption does not just let governments in; it lets everyone in. The wars also never truly ended. They resurface every few years in new clothing: debates about backdoors in messaging apps, about lawful access to encrypted devices, about metadata collection. The arguments are structurally identical to the ones from 1993. Knowing where they came from makes it considerably harder to be fooled by them when they reappear.
A Question to Ponder
If a government today asked a major tech company to build a backdoor into its encryption — not to break it, just to hold a spare key — what would actually stop them from saying yes?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable