Postmodernism can be defined in many ways. The most obvious way is to look at postmodernism as the philosophical school of thought that became popular (and in some circles in western society: prevailing) after "modernism". Just like people (at least in large parts of the western world) lived in "modern times" in the 19th and early 20th century, many now live in "postmodern times".Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism.
This definition does not tell us anything about postmodernism though. A simplistic way of looking at postmodernism is to say that it calls into question and critizises the tenets of modernism. What were those?
Wikipedia offers a pretty good definition: "It is a trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve, and reshape their environment, with the aid of scientific knowledge, technology or practical experimentation. Modernism encouraged the re-examination of every aspect of existence, from commerce to philosophy, with the goal of finding that which was 'holding back' progress, and replacing it with new, progressive and therefore better, ways of reaching the same end."
Modernism was not limited to philosophical circles - it shaped or influenced many parts of society, especially the arts, but also the economy. In fact it was a paradigm of the industrial age, and was supplanted by postmodernism in the post-industrial age.
Both capitalism and communism are fundamentally modernist ideologies. Both are concerned with improving the lives of the many - albeit in very different ways. This is a deeply modernist thought: First of all to believe that the lives of people CAN be improved nad secondly that this is a goal worth striving for. Both goals are never questioned - they are axioms of modernist thought.
Postmodernism as the antithesis of modernism was triggered by the "negative side effects" of modernism. "Side-effect" is an understatement: Modernism did not reach its goals, thereby calling itself into question:
Communism did not exactly work out as envisioned by Marx and Engels. Instead of creating the ideal communist world, a paradise on earth where everyone was to be free, equal and fairly shared the sufficient material resources, it became a totalitarian oligarchy/dictatorship, suppressing large parts of the world and killing millions.
Even Marx' assumption that socialism and subsequently communism are inevitable developments to an increasingly decadent and imperialistic capitalism did not come true.
Both deeply held beliefs - that of an inevitable direction towards communism that history has to take, as well as that of a worker's paradise on earth did not come true. Quite the opposite. The only inevitable consequence of modernism was post-modernism (isn't that ironic?)
On the other political extreme, right wing "fascist" theories did not fulfill their promise either. Hitler and Nazi Germany are the most striking example: Instead of leading to a 1000 year glorious German "empire", Hitler led Germany into a terrible world war that killed more than 55 million people. The idea that some races are "superior" to others lacked any scientific foundation whatsoever from the start and was further discredited by the fact that the "superior" arian race committed the worst atrocities in world history - what is now known as the "holocaust" or the "shoa".
Postmodernism was shaped by the experience that all those wonderful ideologies that promised heaven on earth led to the exact opposite: They produced hell on earth.
Postmodernism started to systematically break down modernist beliefs, questioning everything and anything.
Is there such a thing as absolute "truth"?
Is "morality" a value in itself?
Are our thoughts and actions really governed by reason?
Can we really rely on rational thought ("logos") to increase our knowledge of the world and help us find out what we are supposed to do in it?
If you call into question the very foundations of thought, where will that lead? Is everything questionable, leaving "nihilism" as the only answer? What a frightening thought! Or is there a foundation that cannot be shaken?
Postmodernism gives the answer: There is no single answer. There are no more "one size fits all" answers. Postmodern thinking will never "agree" on any single answer. You find your answer, I'll find mine. For some this may be nihilism, for others it may be the thought that even though the all-encompassing ideologies have failed, individual attempts to do good and live a just life are goals worth striving for. But just because you believe this, it does not mean anyone else has to...
While modernist thought is imbued with the wish to do better - improve yourself, improve the world you live in (until ultimately the world becomes a paradise for everyone). Postmodernism refuses to believe in that. There is no "pilgrim's progress" leading us all to a "promised land".
It is a deeply postmodern thought that there is no single answer for anything and no single truth in this world. There is no single concept or train of thought that offers absolute truth or redemption. Postmodernists will say looking back at modernism's aim to create a better world: "been there - done that". Now see what it got us: Auschwitz, the Gulag, China's cultural revolution and countless other tyrannies, wars and genocides.
Instead, postmodern thought stresses the contradictions in the world:
- We strive for good, yet there is so much evil in the world
- We want peace, yet there are wars everywhere
- We want economic prosperity, yet millions are starving
- We strive for happiness, but we cannot find it
- We want to believe in a benevolent God, yet there is no proof he even exists.
- We want to be reasonable, yet are mostly driven by powers beyond our control.
- We want safety, yet safety is an illsion.
Postmodernism holds that these contradictions are inherent to life. There is no way to find a "solution" or an "answer" to solve them. Living with them, finding your own answers and be prepared to question them again.
This is scary stuff. People want absolute truths, people want to guidance and direction, people want safety and happiness. So none of those are attainable? Well - you probably guessed it - there is no single answer to that question.
In one of my next blog entries I'll talk about this some more.
Sonntag, 18. Januar 2009
Sonntag, 11. Januar 2009
Malthus coming back to haunt us
In 1798 Thomas Robert Malthus published "An Essay on the principles of population". This very influential book is not only the first book on population growth to receive wide public attention, but it is also best remembered for the thesis that population growth will outpace the increase in food production, thereby invariably leading to poverty. You may remember it from high school: Food production growth according to Malthus is likely to increase along a slow arithmetic progression while population growth follows a much faster geometric progression.
Well, Malthus did not take the productivity increases that modern industrialized agriculture brought about into account. Indeed, Malthus' model is overly simplistic, ignoring many other factors that affect the growth of food supply versus population growth: Wars, natural disasters, epidemics, changes in diet, and on the other hand, new productivity increases through better agriculatural methods, fertilizers, irrigation etc.
The bottom line is: For more than 100 years, the world was happy to see that Malthus was wrong.
But was he really? Maybe he wasn't right on how long it would take to get to the point where there are more people on the planet than the earth can feed, but if the population continues to grow, eventually there will not be enough food for everyone. This is obvious and inevitable.
When I was 16 or so, I remember realizing at some point how incredibly many people live on the Earth. Back then more than 4.2 billion people lived on our planet. I found that number shocking and worrying. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population), the world population is estimated to be about 1.5 times that - an estimated 6.7 billion people today. Furthermore, continued population growth is expected until about 2050 when the world population will peak at about 9 billion.
For decades now we all have lived in a stark imbalance between the rich nations in the north and the poor nations in the south. According to the world health organization, about 1/3 of the world's population is well-fed, 1/3 is under-fed and 1/3 is starving. Today, hunger and illnesses caused by malnutrition are the single greatest cause of death world-wide, accounting for 58% of all mortalities - about 36 million people in 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition).
I saw a documentary on "Arte TV" ("Die Hungerkrise - http://www.arte.tv/de/woche/244,broadcastingNum=963998,day=6,week=50,year=2008.html) about a month ago that discussed the reasons for this situation and outlined what is likely to happen in the future.
Reasons:
- Population growth and industrialization using up more and more farm land
- Pollution and climate change increasing the size of deserts and arid land.
- Pollution and climate change decreasing the world's harvest. According to the Arte documentary, a 1 degree (celsius) increase in the average temperature will lead to a 10% decrease in harvests, mainly in the tropics and subtropics (e.g. Africa).
- Changing world diets: As a general rule, it takes about 6 calories of plant-based food to create 1 calorie of meat. Cows in particular require a lot of water and grain and produce a lot of methane. The more meat is produced and consumed, the less food is available overall. Particularly the growing economies in Asia (India, China) experience a diet change. More and more people are eating poultry, meat and fish.
- The last century saw a dramatic increase in food production due to widespread use of fertilizers and other chemicals. It is unlikely that similar increases are possible in the future - quite the opposite, negative effects of over-fertilization and the use of other chemicals are likely to lower productivity.
- Overall decrease of fresh water. See also the "virtual water" concept developed by professor John Anthony Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water).
- Increased production of bio-fuels further reducing the available food supply.
The "arte" documentary went on to explain what the consequences will be:
- More and more countries will be unable to feed their population. They will need to procure agricultural products on the world market. As food becomes more and more scarce, the market prices will rise. The poorest will be the first to be unable to obtain enough food to survive.
- The scarcity of food will lead to "hoarding" making even less food available on the world market, thereby increasing prices.
- The increased prices will lead to speculation on the mercantile exchanges, driving prices up even further.
- Food riots will increase, destabilizing entire nations. The most widely notices food riots in 2007 were in Egypt, Bangladesh, Haiti and Mexico (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis/)
- Conflicts over water rights will increase, leading to potentially armed conflicts
- Populations in famine-stricken regions will try to flee, increasing the number of refugees. Refugees are generally not able to take care of themselves thereby putting a strain on the host nation's resources. Eventually, borders will be closed.
Two factors contribute to the world's inadequate reaction to this increasingly severe problem:
1. People are generally unable to think in exponential growth rates:
You may remember the famous example of the water lilies. Let's assume there is a lake in which the number of water lilies doubles every day. After 30 days, half the lake is covered in water lilies. The question is: How long will it take until the entire lake is covered. Very few people realize that the lake will be completely covered by the next day.
2. People generally do not focus on "critical factors". Critical factors are those that compound the gravity of a situation, thereby leading to more dramatic results than expected. It gets especially dangerous when several critical factors compound each other. In this case there are several critical factors that will cause the situation to worsen much more quickly than most people expect:
- Climate change -> decrease in arable land and decrease in harvests
- Diet change -> Less food available overall because an increasing amount of food is used up for meat production
- Decrease in available fresh water: China has all but used up its (self-replenishing) gound water in many regions. It is now drilling deep wells to access deep water aquifiers. These are not self-replenishing. When they run out, China is (to a large degree) out of water.
For a good discussion of how humans fail to deal with complex situations, I recommend: The Logic of Failure: Why Things Go Wrong and What We Can Do To Make Them Right
by Dietrich Dorner
Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1996, translated by Rita and Robert Kimber, ISBN: 0805041605, $25.00. Paperback edition: The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations, Perseus Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997, 222 pages, ISBN: 0201479486, $16.00.
The big questions are: What can be done about this? What can I do to help? What does this mean for my life and the lives of the people around me?
I'll discuss that in one of my next blog entries. Stay tuned...
Well, Malthus did not take the productivity increases that modern industrialized agriculture brought about into account. Indeed, Malthus' model is overly simplistic, ignoring many other factors that affect the growth of food supply versus population growth: Wars, natural disasters, epidemics, changes in diet, and on the other hand, new productivity increases through better agriculatural methods, fertilizers, irrigation etc.
The bottom line is: For more than 100 years, the world was happy to see that Malthus was wrong.
But was he really? Maybe he wasn't right on how long it would take to get to the point where there are more people on the planet than the earth can feed, but if the population continues to grow, eventually there will not be enough food for everyone. This is obvious and inevitable.
When I was 16 or so, I remember realizing at some point how incredibly many people live on the Earth. Back then more than 4.2 billion people lived on our planet. I found that number shocking and worrying. According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population), the world population is estimated to be about 1.5 times that - an estimated 6.7 billion people today. Furthermore, continued population growth is expected until about 2050 when the world population will peak at about 9 billion.
For decades now we all have lived in a stark imbalance between the rich nations in the north and the poor nations in the south. According to the world health organization, about 1/3 of the world's population is well-fed, 1/3 is under-fed and 1/3 is starving. Today, hunger and illnesses caused by malnutrition are the single greatest cause of death world-wide, accounting for 58% of all mortalities - about 36 million people in 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition).
I saw a documentary on "Arte TV" ("Die Hungerkrise - http://www.arte.tv/de/woche/244,broadcastingNum=963998,day=6,week=50,year=2008.html) about a month ago that discussed the reasons for this situation and outlined what is likely to happen in the future.
Reasons:
- Population growth and industrialization using up more and more farm land
- Pollution and climate change increasing the size of deserts and arid land.
- Pollution and climate change decreasing the world's harvest. According to the Arte documentary, a 1 degree (celsius) increase in the average temperature will lead to a 10% decrease in harvests, mainly in the tropics and subtropics (e.g. Africa).
- Changing world diets: As a general rule, it takes about 6 calories of plant-based food to create 1 calorie of meat. Cows in particular require a lot of water and grain and produce a lot of methane. The more meat is produced and consumed, the less food is available overall. Particularly the growing economies in Asia (India, China) experience a diet change. More and more people are eating poultry, meat and fish.
- The last century saw a dramatic increase in food production due to widespread use of fertilizers and other chemicals. It is unlikely that similar increases are possible in the future - quite the opposite, negative effects of over-fertilization and the use of other chemicals are likely to lower productivity.
- Overall decrease of fresh water. See also the "virtual water" concept developed by professor John Anthony Allen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water).
- Increased production of bio-fuels further reducing the available food supply.
The "arte" documentary went on to explain what the consequences will be:
- More and more countries will be unable to feed their population. They will need to procure agricultural products on the world market. As food becomes more and more scarce, the market prices will rise. The poorest will be the first to be unable to obtain enough food to survive.
- The scarcity of food will lead to "hoarding" making even less food available on the world market, thereby increasing prices.
- The increased prices will lead to speculation on the mercantile exchanges, driving prices up even further.
- Food riots will increase, destabilizing entire nations. The most widely notices food riots in 2007 were in Egypt, Bangladesh, Haiti and Mexico (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/14/world.food.crisis/)
- Conflicts over water rights will increase, leading to potentially armed conflicts
- Populations in famine-stricken regions will try to flee, increasing the number of refugees. Refugees are generally not able to take care of themselves thereby putting a strain on the host nation's resources. Eventually, borders will be closed.
Two factors contribute to the world's inadequate reaction to this increasingly severe problem:
1. People are generally unable to think in exponential growth rates:
You may remember the famous example of the water lilies. Let's assume there is a lake in which the number of water lilies doubles every day. After 30 days, half the lake is covered in water lilies. The question is: How long will it take until the entire lake is covered. Very few people realize that the lake will be completely covered by the next day.
2. People generally do not focus on "critical factors". Critical factors are those that compound the gravity of a situation, thereby leading to more dramatic results than expected. It gets especially dangerous when several critical factors compound each other. In this case there are several critical factors that will cause the situation to worsen much more quickly than most people expect:
- Climate change -> decrease in arable land and decrease in harvests
- Diet change -> Less food available overall because an increasing amount of food is used up for meat production
- Decrease in available fresh water: China has all but used up its (self-replenishing) gound water in many regions. It is now drilling deep wells to access deep water aquifiers. These are not self-replenishing. When they run out, China is (to a large degree) out of water.
For a good discussion of how humans fail to deal with complex situations, I recommend: The Logic of Failure: Why Things Go Wrong and What We Can Do To Make Them Right
by Dietrich Dorner
Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1996, translated by Rita and Robert Kimber, ISBN: 0805041605, $25.00. Paperback edition: The Logic of Failure: Recognizing and Avoiding Error in Complex Situations, Perseus Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997, 222 pages, ISBN: 0201479486, $16.00.
The big questions are: What can be done about this? What can I do to help? What does this mean for my life and the lives of the people around me?
I'll discuss that in one of my next blog entries. Stay tuned...
Donnerstag, 8. Januar 2009
TOR - The Onion Router
As promised, here a few words about TOR - The Onion Router.
Once it is installed, it starts up whenever the computer boots. A window on the desktop shows the status. You can minimize it to the taskbar. When minimized you can still turn it on and off. All that runs without a hitch.
What is a bit disconcerting is that Firefox displays "Tor deactivated" in its status bar even though Tor says it is running in its own window.
The reason is apparently that Tor is not really compatible with Firefox 3. I'll have to wait for a newer version for that... This is a bummer because I rarely use Internet Explorer. Firefox seems to contain fewer security risks.
All in all it looks like it works well - but there is no way for me to gage if it really does provide a certain amount of privacy... or if it just takes up space.
Once it is installed, it starts up whenever the computer boots. A window on the desktop shows the status. You can minimize it to the taskbar. When minimized you can still turn it on and off. All that runs without a hitch.
What is a bit disconcerting is that Firefox displays "Tor deactivated" in its status bar even though Tor says it is running in its own window.
The reason is apparently that Tor is not really compatible with Firefox 3. I'll have to wait for a newer version for that... This is a bummer because I rarely use Internet Explorer. Firefox seems to contain fewer security risks.
All in all it looks like it works well - but there is no way for me to gage if it really does provide a certain amount of privacy... or if it just takes up space.
Samstag, 3. Januar 2009
So what does it mean to live beyond your means?
I ran across an interesting article in Handelsblatt (www.handelsblatt.de) today. A professor of history of economics was interviewed about the current financial crisis.
His key message was that the U.S. has been "living beyond its means" in the last years. He went on to explain that the U.S. were able to maintain their living standard even though many of the core industries are no longer competetive. This was made possible by placing government bonds in the international markets which were bought by American, Asian and European banks (among others).
It is true, the U.S. have accumulated a huge national debt. You can take a look at the number here:
http://www.oddhammer.com/tutorials/debt_clock/US_debt_clock_dynamic.swf.
According to wikipedia that's about $37,000 per capita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
This does not include the new debt due to the financial bail-out package.
What was surprising to me is that Germany is actually not doing much better:
Germany has a debt of € 1.5 Trillion Euros, that's about € 18.000 per capita. At a current exchange rate of 1 Euro - U.S. $ 1.4 that's about $ 25,000 per capita.
That raises the question - when will it ever be paid back? Or take a step back and wonder: Will it ever be paid back? Or will we simply let inflation take care of it?
While it is true that inflation will lower the "value" of national debt, a good part of it is "inflation proof", meaning it adjusts for inflation.
There are several problems associated with national debt:
1. It limits the government's ability to function and direct the economy. Since much of the government's budget is used up for servicing debts, there is little left over for other things. In effect the government loses its ability to "govern" the economy. It ties its own hands.
2. In order to pay it off, the government has two options: Raise taxes or cut back on government services (reduce spending).
Taxes do a lot of things - they re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor, make sure the country is safe and secure, etc. Therefore I do not agree with the widely held belief (especially in the U.S.) that taxes are inherently evil. Taxes at the right level are good and necessary for the government to do its job. And of course there will be a never-ending discussion, what the "right level" is. But from a macro-economic point of view, taxes tend to stifle economic activity. They hamper investment which would lead to new jobs. They reduce consumers disposable income thereby reducing the people's buying power. That in turn hurts business and may lead to a downward spiral of decreasing demand and decreasing supply.
Government services are important. After all, that is what we have a government for. Good roads, an efficient legal system, a well trained and well-equiped police force, welfare for the poor etc. are just some of the things that taxes make possible. And I think there is nothing wrong with that.
But back to national debt: There is another problem associated with national debt - apart from governments "tied hands": Countries pay a certain interest rate on their debt - this interest rate changes and depends on the country's economic power. In effect, investors are receiving interest to offset the risk that they do not get their money back The greater the risk, the higher the interest.
National debt is not a "monolithic block" of debt. It consists of a host of government bonds with a certain interest and a maturity date. In order to pay back the bond when it matures, most governments issue new bonds. In effect it's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If there is less money available in the market (e.g. because other countries are using up the available capital to finance their debt), or if the ratio between national debt and economic ability becomes unfavourable, the interest rate will rise. That means it may become increasingly more expensive to re-finance the national debt. This may lead to a vicious circle in which governments lose the ability to re-finance the debt.
A case in point is Argentina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999-2002)
In essence, the higher the national debt and the weaker the economy, the more likey will a scenario like Argentina's default be.
His key message was that the U.S. has been "living beyond its means" in the last years. He went on to explain that the U.S. were able to maintain their living standard even though many of the core industries are no longer competetive. This was made possible by placing government bonds in the international markets which were bought by American, Asian and European banks (among others).
It is true, the U.S. have accumulated a huge national debt. You can take a look at the number here:
http://www.oddhammer.com/tutorials/debt_clock/US_debt_clock_dynamic.swf.
According to wikipedia that's about $37,000 per capita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
This does not include the new debt due to the financial bail-out package.
What was surprising to me is that Germany is actually not doing much better:
Germany has a debt of € 1.5 Trillion Euros, that's about € 18.000 per capita. At a current exchange rate of 1 Euro - U.S. $ 1.4 that's about $ 25,000 per capita.
That raises the question - when will it ever be paid back? Or take a step back and wonder: Will it ever be paid back? Or will we simply let inflation take care of it?
While it is true that inflation will lower the "value" of national debt, a good part of it is "inflation proof", meaning it adjusts for inflation.
There are several problems associated with national debt:
1. It limits the government's ability to function and direct the economy. Since much of the government's budget is used up for servicing debts, there is little left over for other things. In effect the government loses its ability to "govern" the economy. It ties its own hands.
2. In order to pay it off, the government has two options: Raise taxes or cut back on government services (reduce spending).
Taxes do a lot of things - they re-distribute wealth from the rich to the poor, make sure the country is safe and secure, etc. Therefore I do not agree with the widely held belief (especially in the U.S.) that taxes are inherently evil. Taxes at the right level are good and necessary for the government to do its job. And of course there will be a never-ending discussion, what the "right level" is. But from a macro-economic point of view, taxes tend to stifle economic activity. They hamper investment which would lead to new jobs. They reduce consumers disposable income thereby reducing the people's buying power. That in turn hurts business and may lead to a downward spiral of decreasing demand and decreasing supply.
Government services are important. After all, that is what we have a government for. Good roads, an efficient legal system, a well trained and well-equiped police force, welfare for the poor etc. are just some of the things that taxes make possible. And I think there is nothing wrong with that.
But back to national debt: There is another problem associated with national debt - apart from governments "tied hands": Countries pay a certain interest rate on their debt - this interest rate changes and depends on the country's economic power. In effect, investors are receiving interest to offset the risk that they do not get their money back The greater the risk, the higher the interest.
National debt is not a "monolithic block" of debt. It consists of a host of government bonds with a certain interest and a maturity date. In order to pay back the bond when it matures, most governments issue new bonds. In effect it's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If there is less money available in the market (e.g. because other countries are using up the available capital to finance their debt), or if the ratio between national debt and economic ability becomes unfavourable, the interest rate will rise. That means it may become increasingly more expensive to re-finance the national debt. This may lead to a vicious circle in which governments lose the ability to re-finance the debt.
A case in point is Argentina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_economic_crisis_(1999-2002)
In essence, the higher the national debt and the weaker the economy, the more likey will a scenario like Argentina's default be.
Freitag, 2. Januar 2009
Protecting your personal information
Remember when you used to write a letter (by hand!), put them in an envelope, seal it, stamp it and send it off? Of course you'd put it in an envelope. First of all that makes it easier to put the address and the stamp, but you also didn't want anyone to read your private correspondence.
So how come people send e-mails with personal information to God-knows-who and do not even think that this mail can be read by anyone along the way?
I guess it's a question of habit - just click on "send" and off it goes. Encryption programs are usually cumbersome to use. Also - many people shrug it off and say "who cares about my personal mails anyway?" My mail is one of billions, who will even bother to try to read it?
Germany has passed a law that requires internet and telephone providers to save all internet and telephone communication for 6 months. Anyone who works with Microsoft desktop search knows how easy it is to do simple keyword searches on gigabytes of data within seconds. So maybe nobody is interested in your private mails today - but tomorrow?
What about the websites you visit? Did you know that you leave a "trail" in the internet? Every Website you go to needs to know where to send the data to, so it needs to have your IP address. Althought most IP addresses are dynamic and only your provider knows who has which IP address at any given time, anyone with access to your provider's records will be able to track where you were.
Given the recent scandals at Germany's biggest telephone and internet provider, where millions of personal information records leaked out and were sold on the market, it is just a matter of time until this happens again.
What if your computer got stolen? For most, the financial loss is not so critical, but think about the data on the hard disk? Not only pictures, you may have personal files that you do not want others to see? Or even bank account information, or your will? It is much more worrying what someone could do with the data than the loss of the computer itself.
I think it is time to protect ourselves a little more than in the past. The internet is maturing and it is time to be a little more careful when it comes to using it.
I want to present some programs that can help. You can find them all at:
http://www.heise.de/software
1. E-mail encryption: PGP (Pretty Good Privacy): This program has been around for years. There is a commercial "full" version and a "light" version with limited (but sufficient) features that is free for personal use.
Most people have trouble getting their head around how it works, so here is a quick summary:
To use PGP you need to generate two keys. One is a PUBLIC key that you give to everyone who wants to send you encrypted mails. This key can only ENCRYPT a mail, but it cannot DECRYPT it. The second key is the PRIVATE key that is only used to DECRYPT a mail. Obviously you want to keep that one to yourself. When someone sends you a mail, they use PGP and your PUBLIC key to encrypt it and you use your PRIVATE key to decrypt it upon receipt.
2. Hard Disk encryption: TrueCrypt is a tool you can use to create encrypted folders on your hard disk or even encrypt an entire hard disk. If you encrypt your system disk, you have to enter a password before the operating system (e.g. Windows XP) loads. It has many more nifty features. The main advantage is that, once you have entered the password, the encryption is "invisible". You can work with the folder or the disk as if it was not encrypted.
3. TOR: The onion router: This is a tool that "hides" you in the web. It works almost like a peer-to-peer network, in the sense that you go through a number of routers before you get to the final destination. Each router in between only knows the next router to send it to.
I have not used this program yet, so I'll let you know if it works as well as advertised once I get it installed and configured.
So how come people send e-mails with personal information to God-knows-who and do not even think that this mail can be read by anyone along the way?
I guess it's a question of habit - just click on "send" and off it goes. Encryption programs are usually cumbersome to use. Also - many people shrug it off and say "who cares about my personal mails anyway?" My mail is one of billions, who will even bother to try to read it?
Germany has passed a law that requires internet and telephone providers to save all internet and telephone communication for 6 months. Anyone who works with Microsoft desktop search knows how easy it is to do simple keyword searches on gigabytes of data within seconds. So maybe nobody is interested in your private mails today - but tomorrow?
What about the websites you visit? Did you know that you leave a "trail" in the internet? Every Website you go to needs to know where to send the data to, so it needs to have your IP address. Althought most IP addresses are dynamic and only your provider knows who has which IP address at any given time, anyone with access to your provider's records will be able to track where you were.
Given the recent scandals at Germany's biggest telephone and internet provider, where millions of personal information records leaked out and were sold on the market, it is just a matter of time until this happens again.
What if your computer got stolen? For most, the financial loss is not so critical, but think about the data on the hard disk? Not only pictures, you may have personal files that you do not want others to see? Or even bank account information, or your will? It is much more worrying what someone could do with the data than the loss of the computer itself.
I think it is time to protect ourselves a little more than in the past. The internet is maturing and it is time to be a little more careful when it comes to using it.
I want to present some programs that can help. You can find them all at:
http://www.heise.de/software
1. E-mail encryption: PGP (Pretty Good Privacy): This program has been around for years. There is a commercial "full" version and a "light" version with limited (but sufficient) features that is free for personal use.
Most people have trouble getting their head around how it works, so here is a quick summary:
To use PGP you need to generate two keys. One is a PUBLIC key that you give to everyone who wants to send you encrypted mails. This key can only ENCRYPT a mail, but it cannot DECRYPT it. The second key is the PRIVATE key that is only used to DECRYPT a mail. Obviously you want to keep that one to yourself. When someone sends you a mail, they use PGP and your PUBLIC key to encrypt it and you use your PRIVATE key to decrypt it upon receipt.
2. Hard Disk encryption: TrueCrypt is a tool you can use to create encrypted folders on your hard disk or even encrypt an entire hard disk. If you encrypt your system disk, you have to enter a password before the operating system (e.g. Windows XP) loads. It has many more nifty features. The main advantage is that, once you have entered the password, the encryption is "invisible". You can work with the folder or the disk as if it was not encrypted.
3. TOR: The onion router: This is a tool that "hides" you in the web. It works almost like a peer-to-peer network, in the sense that you go through a number of routers before you get to the final destination. Each router in between only knows the next router to send it to.
I have not used this program yet, so I'll let you know if it works as well as advertised once I get it installed and configured.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)