UNIVERSITY OF SURREY Expertise as an Object: An Ontological Study of Cryptology Research in the United Kingdom from 1970 to 2000 by Richard Fletcher Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences Department of Sociology Supervisors: Dr Christine Hine and Dr Nicola Green ©Richard Fletcher Words: 95,698 Declaration of Authorship This thesis and the work to which it refers are the results of my own efforts. Any ideas, data, images or text resulting from the work of others (whether published or unpublished) are fully identified as such within the work and attributed to their originator in the text, bibliography or in footnotes. This thesis has not been submitted in whole or in part for any other academic degree or professional qualification. I agree that the University has the right to submit my work to the plagiarism detection service TurnitinUK for originality checks. Whether or not drafts have been so-assessed, the University reserves the right to require an electronic version of the final document (as submitted) for assessment as above. Signature: Date: i \Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Juvenal (Satire VI, lines 347-8) Abstract Recent research carried out under the `third wave of science studies' has produced robust categories of expertise, and has developed normative ideas about how it should be used during controversies over technological decision-making. Though separate in the literature, third wave ideas about contributory expertise appear to be compatible with the recent `turn to ontology'. Both sets of ideas focus on what it is that practices are able to produce, and consider the results of those practices to be real. It is argued here that contributory expertise can usefully be treated as an `object' under the ontological framework, thus placing additional analytical focus on the practices that are used to enact it. To explore this idea, documentary analysis and qualitative interviews have been used to produce a description of cryptology research and the crypto wars in the United Kingdom from 1970 to 2000. The cryptology research carried out at four research sites will be described. It is argued that, given divergence amongst the institutional research practices used at each site, the contributory cryptology ex- pertises enacted during this period were `multiple', and can be identified as such using sociological discrimination. A description of how these expertises were then used during the crypto wars - a subsequent controversy over the regulation and use of cryptography in the 1990s - is also provided. It is argued that, as a consequence of this multiplicity, expertises were used during the crypto wars in different ways and for different purposes. In particular, the consequences of basing political deci- sions on expertise enacted in secret are described. It is argued that acknowledging multiplicity amongst contributory expertise could be used to improve the applica- tion of `elective modernism', and to refine its core tenets through the application of a `Minimum Transfer Requirement' and the identification of the `problem of expert discrimination'. Acknowledgements I would like to extend my gratitude to my supervisors, Christine Hine and Nicola Green, for their excellent supervision over the course of the last four years. I'd like to thank them for their patience in letting me figure where my ideas were leading, for allowing me to draw on their extensive knowledge of the Science and Technology Studies literature, and for their invaluable help in preparing for preparing research papers and conference presentations. I would also like to extend my gratitude to all of my interviewees for being generous and helpful with their time, and for sharing their memories with me. Similarly, I would like to thank all of the archivists for their help in tracking down the relevant sources. I would like to thank all of the other members of staff in the Department of Sociol- ogy at the University of Surrey for providing a unique and inspiring environment for doctoral research. In particular, I would like to thank Kate Burningham, Rachel Cohen and Rob Meadows for allowing me to teach on their undergraduate Research Methods modules. Special thanks also go to Geoff Cooper for allow- ing me to have the first pick of his vast collection of academic books upon his retirement. I would also like to thank all of the administrative staff for making everything run so smoothly. I am also grateful for the stimulating and enlivening presence of my fellow doctoral students in the Department of Sociology. In particular, I would like to thank Peter Johnson for his enthusiasm for discussing social research, his willingness to collaborate with me on a separate project, and most importantly, for driving us both from London to Guildford on a regular basis. I would also like sincerely thank friends and housemates past and present for their support and motivation over the course of the last four years. Although it probably didn't seem like you were helping me complete my research - you were. Special thanks, of course, go to Clemy Walker. Finally, I would like to thank the Economic and Social Research council for gener- ously providing the three years' worth of funding that made the research possible. iv Contents Declaration of Authorship i Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv List of Figures x List of Tables xi Abbreviations xii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Controversies and Expertise . 1 1.2 Cryptology and the Crypto Wars . 6 1.2.1 Why Cryptology and the Crypto Wars? . 7 1.2.2 The History of Cryptology . 10 1.2.3 Public-Key Cryptography . 11 1.2.4 The Literature on the Crypto Wars . 13 1.3 Research Questions and Answers . 20 1.4 Chapter Guide . 23 2 Literature Review 28 2.1 Introduction . 28 2.2 Expertise and Controversies over Technological Decision-Making . 28 2.2.1 What is a Controversy? . 29 2.2.2 Controversies and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge . 31 2.2.3 Controversies and the Sociology of Technology . 32 2.2.4 Ways of Understanding Controversies . 34 2.2.5 Controversies over Technological Decision-Making . 39 2.2.6 The Third Wave of Science Studies . 42 2.2.7 The Periodic Table of Expertise . 46 v Contents vi 2.2.8 Specialist Expertise . 49 2.2.9 Elective Modernism . 51 2.2.10 Meta-Expertise . 57 2.2.11 Criticisms of Elective Modernism . 58 2.2.12 Summary . 60 2.3 The Ontological Framework . 61 2.3.1 The Epistemological Framework . 62 2.3.2 Ontological Fluidity . 63 2.3.3 Ontological Multiplicity . 65 2.3.4 Developing the Ontological Framework . 66 2.3.5 Criticisms of the Ontological Framework . 70 2.3.6 Summary . 73 2.4 Conclusion . 73 3 Methodology 77 3.1 Introduction . 77 3.2 Methodological Background . 77 3.2.1 Case Study . 78 3.2.2 Historical Methods . 82 3.3 Data Gathering . 85 3.3.1 Research Design . 85 3.3.2 Documentary Analysis . 87 3.3.3 Practicalities of Documentary Analysis . 90 3.3.4 Semi-Structured Interviewing . 92 3.3.5 Practicalities of Semi-Structured Interviewing . 96 3.3.6 A Note on Ethics . 100 3.4 Conclusion . 100 4 Cryptology Research at the National Physical Laboratory 103 4.1 Introduction . 103 4.2 Historical Overview of NPL . 104 4.2.1 Early Computing Research . 106 4.2.2 New Public Management . 108 4.3 The Data Security Group . 112 4.3.1 Cryptology Standards . 113 4.3.2 Later Governance of NPL . 116 4.3.3 Testing and Accreditation . 119 4.4 Conclusion . 122 5 Cryptology Research at Royal Holloway 123 5.1 Introduction . 123 5.2 Historical Overview of the University of London . 124 5.3 Historical Overview of Racal . 126 5.3.1 Early Years . 127 5.3.2 Development of Communications Security Products . 128 Contents vii 5.3.3 Enlisting Cryptology Expertise . 129 5.4 Historical Overview of Royal Holloway . 131 5.5 The Information Security Group . 133 5.5.1 Formation . 133 5.5.2 Early Cryptology Research and Industrial Collaboration . 135 5.5.3 Teaching . 137 5.6 Conclusion . 138 6 Cryptology Research at the University of Cambridge 140 6.1 Introduction . 140 6.2 Historical Overview of the Cambridge Computer Laboratory . 141 6.2.1 The Roots of Computing Research . 141 6.2.2 Formation . 142 6.2.3 Early Computer Development . 144 6.3 Computer Security and Cryptology Research . 145 6.3.1 Early Cryptology and Computer Security Research . 147 6.3.2 The Security Group . 148 6.3.3 Cryptology and Security Systems . 150 6.4 Conclusion . 152 7 Cryptology Research at the Government Communications Head- quarters 154 7.1 Introduction . 154 7.2 The UK's Intelligence Organizations . 155 7.3 Historical Overview of GCHQ . 157 7.4 The Communications-Electronics Security Group . 160 7.4.1 Formation . 160 7.4.2 Research on Non-Secret Encryption . 162 7.4.3 Increased Public Awareness . 166 7.4.4 Public Role . 168 7.4.5 Continued Secrecy . 169 7.5 Conclusion . 170 8 The Political Phase of the Crypto Wars 173 8.1 Introduction . 173 8.1.1 A Note on Organization . 174 8.2 The Debate over Trusted Third Parties . 175 8.2.1 Background . 175 8.2.2 The Announcement of the TTP Proposals . 178 8.2.3 The First Stage of Consultation . 188 8.2.4 The Second Stage of Consultation . 197 8.2.5 The End of the TTP Debate . 203 8.3 The Debate over Export Controls . 205 8.3.1 The Background . 206 8.3.2 The Announcement of the Export Control Proposals . 208 Contents viii 8.3.3 The Consultation Process .