A few months back, I used this column to explain why Apple should not have to crack its security measures and unlock a phone for the FBI. The phone belonged to one of the San Bernardino terrorists, and it seemed likely that it contained information that would be useful to law enforcement. It many ways, it was an ideal test case for the FBI. Popular opinion was mixed, but generally fell on the side of Apple helping out the government, "just this once."

Of course, that isn't how technology works. The FBI eventually found a way to break the lock anyway, proving that no security system is truly unbreakable. But the broader question remains: Should the government have access to any communication?

In the course of my argument, I said, "This is a big new problem, and it requires a new debate." That isn't entirely accurate. The technology has evolved, but the debate is an old one. The arguments the government made about encrypted iPhones are the same as those made when Phil Zimmerman released PGP (Pretty Good Privacy, an email encryption software package) in 1991. In fact, the debate goes back to the 1970s, at least. And the government's stance is always the same.

Subscribe today to the PC Magazine Digital Edition for iOS devices.

Sam Adler-Bell, a policy associate at The Century Foundation, corrected me online and used the following quotes to make his point. All of them are from FBI officials explaining the imminent danger that encryption technologies pose to the American people:

"When changes in technology hinder law enforcement's ability to exercise investigative tools and follow critical leads, we may not be able to root out the child predators hiding in the shadows of the Internet or find and arrest violent criminals who are targeting our neighborhoods."

—FBI Director James Comey, March 2016

"In the ever-changing world of modern communications technologies, however, the FBI and other government agencies are facing a potentially widening gap between our legal authority to intercept electronic communications pursuant to court order and our practical ability to actually intercept those communications. We confront, with increasing frequency, service providers who do not fully comply with court orders in a timely and efficient manner."

—FBI General Counsel Valerie Caproni, February 2011.

"Uncrackable encryption will allow drug lords, spies, terrorists and even violent gangs to communicate about their crimes and their conspiracies with impunity. We will lose one of the few remaining vulnerabilities of the worst criminals and terrorists upon which law enforcement depends to successfully investigate and often prevent the worst crimes."

—FBI Director Louis Freeh, July 1997.

That's a perfect illustration of the old argument, and it isn't entirely without merit. Yet the scope and scale of pro-encryption arguments have changed dramatically over the years. When the Clipper chip (an encryption device with a built-in backdoor) was pushed forward in the 1990s, it was primarily intended to allow the government to tap voice calls. Now, encryption protects everything, from your Google Photos library to your Venmo payments. The technology has become a fundamental part of the infrastructure of the digital world. The encryption battle is just as much about e-commerce and international relations as it is about privacy and security.

As we were closing this issue, Google released Allo, its latest bot-assistant uber-messaging app for Android. It looks promising, but it is already drawing fire from privacy advocates. Edward Snowden tweeted from an undisclosed location in Russia: "What is #Allo? A Google app that records every message you ever send and makes it available to police upon request." Although you can enable an encrypted incognito mode, by default the app will log and store all of your messages. Indefinitely.

Some things have changed. We live in a world where every click gets tracked; your phone continually transmits your location, and we're constantly broadcasting and receiving digital information. Digital trails extend from every decision we make, both online and in real life. And those trails persist indefinitely. None of that means we can dismiss the warnings of the FBI, but its offer a new context.

In this month's cover story, Max Eddy dives deep into the roots of the encryption wars. He talks to the some of the creators of public key encryption about what it means and why it matters. And the Crypto Wars continue.

Read all about encryption in the October issue of the PC Magazine Digital Edition, available now via Apple iTunes.