A few words about the title: The first seven letters are written using a very simple code, or cypher. Each of the letters in the original word is replaced by the non-alphabetical character to which it is closest on a US keyboard. The process of hiding a message by substituting other letters, numbers or symbols is known as encryption. When the code is reversed, the title reads ‘Explaining Encryption’.
But it also looks like swearing, doesn’t it? In fact, the use of characters like this to denote swearing is a simple (dare we say crude?) kind of encryption. A child too innocent to know such words derives no meaning from the random collection of characters. Someone well versed in the ways of the world, though, can add up the number of characters and quickly deduce what was intended.
On and off over the last two months, we’ve been looking at various aspects of online security. This week, we’re going to consider what steps we can take to make the information we send over the Internet secure from prying eyes.
We’ll also consider why it is that no one uses these measures, and why most of us won’t any time soon.
Instead of exposing the painful ritual of public/private key exchange, software developers should instead be using metaphors of human trust and service.
A ‘translator’ service, for example. The user ‘invents’ an imaginary language, then decides who among her friends is allowed to speak it with her. She then instructs her ‘translator’ (e.g. her own personal Navajo) to convey messages between herself and her friend’s translator.
(Only the personal Navajos actually need to speak this ‘language’ of course. As far as the two correspondents are concerned, the only change is that they’re sending the message via the ‘translator’ rather than directly, but even that is a wafer-thin bit of functionality once the channel is established and the communications process automated.)
Quick encryption, well understood, and easy to implement. Most importantly, you don’t have to explain encryption, public and private keys, or any other security gobbledygook to someone who really doesn’t want – and shouldn’t need – to hear it.
Update: Of course, the greatest weakness to this idea is if Microsoft were to create an implementation of this and name it Bob.