Why encryption advocacy could destroy civil liberties

The Myth of the Heroic Cipher: How Encryption Advocacy Serves the Powerful

We’ve been sold a fairy‑tale: “If you encrypt, you protect yourself from the state’s tyranny.” The narrative is neat, it makes the tech elite look like saintly guardians and paints any call for regulation as a draconian assault on liberty. But the reality is far uglier. The louder the chorus of “privacy‑first” tech evangelists, the deeper the trench they dig for corporate data hoards, law‑enforcement cartels, and a surveillance apparatus that knows no bounds.

When the public is told that only encryption can stop the government from spying, they forget that the same tools are used by multinational corporations to lock workers out of their own data, to monetize every keystroke, and to weaponize personal information against dissenting communities. The “encryption crusade” is a convenient distraction from a more insidious power grab: the privatization of security and the creation of a legal vacuum where the state can demand backdoors after the fact, while the tech giants profit from the very secrecy they claim to protect.

• Corporate data monopolies grow stronger when encryption is framed as a civil‑rights issue, because any regulation that would force transparency on data practices is labeled “anti‑privacy.”
• Law‑enforcement agencies gain political cover by declaring a “war on encryption,” while quietly lobbying for mandatory backdoors that would give them unrestricted access to every encrypted channel.
• Marginalized communities bear the brunt, because the state’s surveillance tools are disproportionately deployed in Black, Latino, and low‑income neighborhoods, a fact buried under the romanticism of “digital self‑defense.”

The myth works because it pits “the people” against “the state,” ignoring the collusion between the two. It’s a classic divide‑and‑conquer tactic, and the victims are the very citizens who are told they must encrypt to survive.

Backdoors, Big Money, and the Prison‑Industrial‑Complex of Surveillance

The push for “backdoors” is not a fringe idea; it’s a multi‑billion‑dollar industry. The Department of Justice, the FBI, and the newly proposed White House Office on digital investigations have already earmarked funds to hire thousands of analysts, expand the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces, and develop sophisticated de‑encryption tools (see the Third Way report, 2024). Yet, paradoxically, the same agencies have slashed more than $60 million from programs that actually protect children and support victims, as the report notes.

Why the double‑dip? Because every dollar spent on “law‑enforcement tech” is a dollar that doesn’t go toward social services, affordable housing, or community health—areas that demonstrably reduce crime. The result is a vicious feedback loop: weakened encryption fuels more surveillance, which justifies larger budgets, which in turn erode the social safety net that could make surveillance unnecessary.

The private sector is cashing in, too. Companies that specialize in “law‑enforcement compliance” tools—think digital forensics firms and corporate spyware vendors—are lobbying Congress alongside the tech giants they claim to oppose. Their lobbyists frame any regulation as “anti‑innovation,” while quietly promising the government a monopoly on the very backdoors they help build.

• $2.3 billion spent in FY 2023 on federal cybersecurity and law‑enforcement tech (GAO, 2023).
• $150 million awarded to private contractors for “encrypted communications analysis” (DoJ budget, 2024).
• Over 200 bills introduced since 2019 aimed at mandating lawful access, most backed by corporate lobbyists (Congressional Research Service, 2024).

When we ask who benefits from these cash flows, the answer is obvious: a handful of tech conglomerates, a growing prison‑industrial‑complex, and a political class that thrives on fear. The rest—workers, families, activists—are left to shoulder the cost of a security state that masquerades as a defender of liberty.

The False Promise of “Privacy‑First” Tech: Who Really Benefits?

The tech industry loves to tout “end‑to‑end encryption” as a badge of moral superiority. In press releases, CEOs claim they are “defending democracy” and “protecting the vulnerable.” Yet the same platforms routinely monetize user data through targeted advertising, algorithmic amplification of extremist content, and opaque data‑sharing agreements with law‑enforcement agencies.

Take the recent “EARN IT” legislation debate. Civil‑liberties groups—TechFreedom, Americans for Prosperity, the ACLU, and the Center for Democracy & Technology—joined forces to condemn the bill’s potential to erode encryption (Politico, 2020). Their criticism was not a defense of an abstract right; it was a direct challenge to a law that would force tech companies to hand over user data under the threat of massive fines.

But the narrative that “only encryption can stop the state” conveniently ignores that without robust public regulation, companies can choose to weaken their own security standards for profit, citing “national security” as a pretext.

Corporate‑controlled privacy – encryption that can be toggled on request, data that can be sold to advertisers, and “security” that is actually a profit‑center.
State‑mandated access – backdoors that are sold to law‑enforcement for a price, often without oversight, creating a market for surveillance tools.

The working class, who rely on low‑cost smartphones and free apps, never gets the “premium privacy” that wealthy users can afford. Their communications are left exposed, while the state and corporations profit from the illusion that “privacy is universal.

Misinformation Mania: Debunking the “Encryption Saves Democracy” Lie

The public discourse is littered with three persistent falsehoods. Let’s call them out, point by point.

These myths persist because they simplify a complex reality into a binary “good vs. evil” story that is easy to sell. The truth is messier: encryption is both a shield and a lever, depending on who holds the key. Ignoring this nuance lets policymakers chase feel‑good legislation while the underlying power dynamics remain untouched.

Why Regulation Is the Only Shield for Marginalized Communities

If we continue to let “encryption advocacy” dominate the conversation, we will cement a system where only the affluent can truly protect their data. The solution is not more “voluntary” privacy tools—it’s public, democratic regulation that treats privacy as a collective right, not a market commodity.

• Mandate universal strong encryption for all communication services, with independent audits and transparent oversight.
• Prohibit mandatory backdoors by law, with heavy penalties for any agency that attempts to circumvent the rule.
• Fund community‑run digital security labs in low‑income neighborhoods, ensuring that activists, organizers, and small businesses have access to vetted tools.
• Redirect the billions earmarked for law‑enforcement tech toward affordable housing, healthcare, and education—proven reducers of crime and surveillance demand.

These steps flip the script: instead of allowing corporate‑state collusion to dictate the terms of privacy, we place the power back in the hands of the public, backed by democratic institutions. It’s a radical, but necessary, re‑imagining of what “civil liberties” truly mean in the digital age.

The Reckoning: What Happens When We Keep Ignoring the Real Threat

Continue down the path of glorifying encryption as a lone‑wolf solution, and we will see:

• A surveillance state with legal cover—backdoors become normalized, and courts will be forced to interpret vague “national security” exceptions in ways that erode due process.
• Corporate data feudalism—tech giants will own the keys to the digital kingdom, charging citizens for “privacy” while quietly handing over data to the state.
• Deepening inequality—wealthy users will enjoy true end‑to‑end security; working families will be left with half‑measures, exposed to both corporate exploitation and state intrusion.

The stakes are not abstract. They are measured in lives lost to over‑policing, communities shredded by data‑driven targeting, and a democratic fabric frayed by secrecy. The bold claim that “encryption advocacy protects civil liberties” is, in practice, a Trojan horse that lets the powerful rewrite the rules of privacy on their own terms.

The only way out is a collective, equity‑focused push for transparent, enforceable regulation—a public investment in digital rights that matches the scale of the threats we face. Anything less is a betrayal of the very liberties we claim to defend.

Sources

• Governments continue losing efforts to gain backdoor access to secure communications (Stanford Cyberlaw)
• Weakened Encryption: The Threat to America’s National Security | Third Way
• Encryption clash: Executive branch, Congress vs. tech, civil liberties groups - POLITICO