> This makes cryptography an inherently political tool.
It always was.
Many developers like to stay out of politics. Concentrating on difficult technical problems is hard enough; adding in politics is therefor adding in unnecessary complexity. As the wonderful Tom Lehrer put it in his song "Wernher Von Braun"[1],
Don't say that he's hypocritical,
Say rather that he's apolitical.
"once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?
That's not my department," says Wernher von Braun.
The problem with this is similar to the problem of abstaining from the vote: it's absolutely
not a neutral position. Choosing to abstain from politics in general, like those that choose to abstain from the vote, is
de facto a vote for the status quo and majority rule.
Not only is cryptography an inherently political tool, almost all software is political.
Software does not exist in a vacuum; the entire point of most software is that it has an impact on business, society, and the world. With the discovery of the General Purpose Computer, this impact can be very large.
It's easy to see why cryptography disrupts existing power structures. It should be similarly easy to see how software already overturned the traditional power structures in places like the stock market, manufacturing, and retail.
So please, consider what impact your software might have when you are writing it, or if someone already has a goal in mind. Maybe, in some cases, it's better to walk away. It;'s a hard question, but the answer is not to say "I'm staying out of politics". To quote Quinn Norton and Eleanor Saitta from their talk[2] at 30c3, there is "no neutral ground in a burning world".
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEJ9HrZq7Ro#t=16
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWg2qEEa9CE