It would be difficult to find someone who considered the very act of encryption to be ethically problematic in itself. The simple act of transforming a plain message into a hidden one is in itself a neutral act. Historically speaking, the ethical nature of any particular act has been determined by three categories: the kind of act done, the intention of the act, and the circumstances surrounding the act. The dilemma appears not in the act of encryption, but in the intention of the act and in the circumstances that surround the act.

Intention concerns why the encryption is being done. When done for positive reasons—sending a message on how to escape a concentration camp, for instance—all would agree that the intention would be noble and good. When the intention is nefarious, however, it turns a neutral act of simple encryption into a bad act, such as that of criminals encrypting information on their activities and plans to commit crime. Those who view encryption as a danger to civil society typically focus on the criminal possibilities of cryptography, claiming that “criminals and terrorists would be able to communicate in secret, safe from police wiretaps” (403-04). This is, of course, true, and so the debate becomes one about prudential means to ensure the common good and public safety.