Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Too Much Encryption?

Peter Suderman | From the January 2011 issue

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

The U.S. government has never cared for digital encryption designed for private use. In the early 1990s, when such technology first became widely available, Washington responded by restricting its sale and distribution abroad and requiring telecommunication companies to structure their products in a way that made federal wiretapping efforts easier.

As Mike Godwin recounted in the May 2000 issue of reason, President Bill Clinton introduced what was dubbed the Clipper Chip program in 1993. Developed under the supervision of the National Security Agency, the chip gave the government a secret "back door" that could be used for federal investigations. As Godwin explained, the idea was that "the device would let computer or telephone users encrypt their communications, [but] it would also let the government recover the content of the coded messages."

Digital communication technology has evolved considerably since then, but Washington's response hasn't changed much. In September, Justice Department officials announced that they would press Congress to pass regulations requiring all digital communication providers to alter their systems so they could be wiretapped. If carried out, the initiative would let federal officials with a court order peer into communications carried by popular online services such as Facebook and Skype and via wireless devices such as Blackberries.

Officials claim the law is a necessary response to the increasing use of encryption in personal communication, which they say is hindering their surveillance efforts. But according to an April 2010 report from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, state and federal courts issued 2,376 wiretap orders in 2009—and law enforcement officials encountered encryption in only one case.

Nor is it clear that the requirement would be enforceable in a world of decentralized software development. Many technology initiatives are created, updated, and maintained by loosely organized groups with no central authority.  

Meanwhile, adding electronic back doors would force technology companies to reduce the security in their systems. That's a requirement with global ramifications, since it would make it significantly easier for foreign governments and other international actors to compromise the digital security of American communications.

Under pressure from civil libertarians, the Clinton administration eventually ditched the Clipper Chip initiative. With any luck, that part of history will repeat itself too.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Brickbats

Peter Suderman is features editor at Reason.

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (0)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Brickbat: Checks in the Mail

Charles Oliver | 8.29.2025 4:00 AM

Trump's Immigration Crackdown Could Make Wildfire Season Deadlier This Year

Jeff Luse | 8.28.2025 4:45 PM

The Real Threat to Fed Independence Isn't Trump. It's Congress' Debt Addiction.

Veronique de Rugy | 8.28.2025 4:30 PM

The 10th Circuit Agrees That Prosecuting Cannabis Consumers for Gun Possession May Be Unconstitutional

Jacob Sullum | 8.28.2025 4:15 PM

Federal Funding for Universities Comes With Strings. Now Trump Is Pulling Them.

Jack Nicastro | 8.28.2025 4:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300