A Tool for Privacy

The algorithm being the code leads to encryption. When Alan Turing worked on his Turing Machine, he planned a machine where the instruction-code was part of its working, where the binary code was a fixed logic in dispute, in other words the machine turning into its own algorithm, which means nothing else than dialectic.
And exactly here the theoretical work on cryptography touches - as a consequence of the actor always having been part of the technical arrangements - an issue of modern democracy, the question about the private and the public: the terms are changing, do not fit to their original meanings anymore. One might say the Internet is something private. One might state the contrary. Both sentences are wrong. It is neither of them. Maybe we do not all feel it yet, but humans are going through a stage of blurred words, where classic definitions get lost, just like the codes/algorithms of behavior. The meta-narratives break down, not leaving anything but puzzle pieces. We can never be private on the Internet. Nor could we be in public if we were "out there" in virtual reality.

Cryptography, the study pretending to work for privacy, cannot provide us with absolute privacy either, as the danger of losing it through a decryption attack hinders its prospering. At the latest with the quantum computers coming into existence the patterns of the encoded picture will not be visible anymore. At the same time the social relations, its exact and excluding meanings must blur.
Democracy needs something to rely on, something to refer to, just like the private and the public.
Still, our need for privacy on the one hand and curiosity on the other hand create the longing for cryptography of information as well as its decoding.

"Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn't want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn't want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world."
(Cypherpunk's Manifesto)

TEXTBLOCK 1/2 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611776/100438659172
 
Another Question of Security

Even with the best techniques it is impossible to invent a cryptographic system that is absolutely safe/unbreakable. To decipher a text means to go through many, sometimes nearly - but never really - endless attempts. For the computers of today it might take hundreds of years or even more to go through all possibilities of codes, but still, finally the code stays breakable. The much faster quantum computers will proof that one day.
Therefore the decision to elect a certain method of enciphering finally is a matter of trust.

For the average user of computers it is rather difficult to understand or even realize the dangers and/or the technological background of electronic transmission of data. For the majority thinking about one's own necessities for encryption first of all means to trust others, the specialists, to rely on the information they provide.
The websites explaining the problems behind (and also the articles and books concerning the topic) are written by experts of course as well, very often in their typical scientific language, merely understandable for laymen. The introductions and other superficial elements of those articles can be understood, whereas the real background appears as untouchable spheres of knowledge.

The fact that dangers are hard to see through and the need for security measures appears as something most people know from media reports, leads directly to the problem of an underdeveloped democracy in the field of cryptography. Obviously the connection between cryptography and democracy is rather invisible for many people. Those mentioned media reports often specialize in talking about the work computer hackers do (sometimes being presented as criminals, sometimes as heroes) and the danger to lose control over the money drawn away from one's bank account, if someone steals the credit card number or other important financial data. The term "security", surely connected to those issues, is a completely different one from the one that is connected to privacy.
It is especially the latter that touches the main elements of democracy.

for the question of security see:
http://www-db.stanford.edu/pub/gio/CS99I/security.html

TEXTBLOCK 2/2 // URL: http://world-information.org/wio/infostructure/100437611776/100438658850