[Warning: possible funniness-elimination text below]

One of the case studies I am doing for my thesis is on the encryption debate at the Wassenaar Arrangement during the late 1990s, over the topic that is discussed in this comic. Basically, strong encryption of electronic communication was rapidly becoming widespread throughout the world, and there was a significant effort by several governments to keep the encryption under export controls. If they had been successful, a person would have had to apply for a license to send or use the software outside of the country the software came from, this included famously the restriction on the export of a version of Netscape Communicator, which was eventually relaxed.

The poignant thing I find in this comic is the point that, were this level of encryption still covered as a munitions item (for US export controls), its use by individual citizens would have very likely become a hot topic for the “right to bear arms” lobby. Was that a factor in deciding to decontrol it? This question points to larger issues, one of which is that it is not at all clear where the line is (or even should be) drawn between what is a military technology and what is not. Have you ever bought something online? Then you have likely used encryption that was heavily controlled only ten years ago. Do you feel safer for having that encryption? You can see that there is a trade-off here; citizens’ safety (and their privacy) is arguable increased while state security is (or could be) diminished. Which side of the political fence would you like to be on?