Crypto for the people

Of course, the hardcore cypherpunks, like John Gilmore, one of the earliest employees of Sun Microsystems, or Phil Zimmerman, the author of the software program Pretty Good Privacy, or Tim May, the libertarian survivalist, would indeed argue that cryptography is a liberating and empowering tool; that, in fact, the blessings bestowed upon humanity by the computer and the Internet cannot be secured without widely accessible, ironclad encryption tools. Some cypherpunks will even contend that the cryptographic future is one in which all instruments of authority lose their power to inflict their will upon individuals, thus setting in motion an era of "crypto anarchy" that permits the highest possible levels of individual freedom.

"Crypto" is most interesting when it focuses on this part of the story. Witness Eric Hughes, one of the first Internet-enabled crypto-activists. "Now, at the dawn of the Internet, he was figuring out how he could use codes to fortify the information age. His ultimate goal was combining pure-market capitalism and freedom fighting. In his world view, governments -- even allegedly benign ones like the United States -- were a constant threat to the well-being of citizens. Individual privacy was a citadel constantly under attack by the state. The great miracle was that the state could be thwarted by algorithms. 'It used to be that you could get privacy by going to the physical frontier, where no one would bother you,' he said. 'With the right application of cryptography, you can again move out to the frontier -- permanently.'"

But the freedom envisioned by Eric Hughes is a bit different from the freedom conferred upon users by, say, a Macintosh, or SimCity, or some cool mutating genetic algorithms -- the kind of freedoms Levy writes about in his previous books. It's not the freedom to create, but a freedom to conspire, to lock doors and wall oneself off from the outside world. Cryptographic freedom is based on the premise that the world is out to get you, and you better have plenty of crypto tools to protect you along with your guns and ammo next to your cans of beans and portable generator.

Then again, like the man said, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. Maybe we all should be paranoid. But the main weakness of "Crypto" is its failure to pursue in greater depth the odd negativity that is fostered in the world of cryptography, to investigate more closely the consequences and/or possibilities inherent in crypto freedom fighting. Unfortunately, we don't even get to the chapter "Crypto Anarchy" until about two-thirds of the way through the book. And after a review of the Clipper Chip and the defeat of export controls, Levy also doesn't follow through on an investigation of whether the goals that the cypherpunks are pursuing actually will result in greater individual freedom.

Yes, as the subtitle notes, the "code rebels" did "beat the government." They defeated attempts to install the Big Brotherish Clipper Chip technology into everyday phones and computers. And they successfully ended the era in which American corporations and individuals were prohibited from exporting so-called strong crypto to other countries. But what about ending the power of the IRS and destroying the concept of the nation-state? What about protecting private citizens from the depredations of jack-booted thugs? What about untraceable e-cash unleashing a new era of total capitalist freedom?

If anything, the dawn of a new millennium makes such possibilities seem more unlikely than ever before, despite the progress made by cypherpunks. One could argue that the main achievement of widespread cryptography has been to make the Web safe for regular old e-commerce. Few people think twice about inputting a credit card number to buy books at Amazon or tickets at Travelocity. (One could also argue that cryptographic security isn't even necessary there -- few people seem to think twice about giving their credit card numbers to complete strangers over the phone without any technological protection.)

The average person cares about computers and the Internet. But does the average person care about crypto? Probably not. Should we? Probably yes. We should care about the information being gathered on us by corporations and governments. And we should care about whether we have tools to protect that information from being assembled and used against us, or at us.

But should we live in fear, wracked with paranoia, and devote ourselves to shrouding every action in secrecy? One would hope not. And yet that's the back story to the rise of cryptography -- a story that could have used a few more chapters focused on it, in "Crypto."

• View blog reactions