Public-key cryptography and information security Essay

Public-key cryptography and information security - Essay Example Public Key Cryptography (PKC) uses a key with two elements, a "public key" and a "private key", for the implementation of an encryption algorithm that doesn't require two parties (sender and receiver) to first exchange a secret key in an attempt to carry out the process of communication. In this scenario, the public key part is used for encryption entirely at the receiver side, whose private key part is applied for decryption. However, in order to make this communication safe it is necessary to make sure that only the intended receiver is able to access the private part of the key. Moreover, this concept is also used in elegant implementation of digital signatures (Tschabitscher, 2011) and (Adleman, Rivest, Shamir, & Williamson, 2010). Public key cryptography is considered as extremely protected for the reason that it does not require a secret common key between the receiver and sender. However, other encryption methods and technologies that utilize a single common key to both decryp t and encrypt information depend mutually on both parties (sender and receiver) in order to make a decision about a key ahead of time exclusive of other parties finding what that key is (Kayne, 2011). The most important benefit of PKC is its excellent security and ease of use. In addition, PKC is very useful in implementing secure algorithms since there is need to have an identical key for both parties (sender and the receiver).

Open topic Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 1

Open topic - Essay Example Democracies can either be direct or representation. In direct democracy, the public is allowed to directly participate in their government. In representative democracies, citizens are always allowed to elect representatives who will represent them in the decision making processes. Despite being popular, democracy cannot be referred to as the best form of governance. This paper aims at proving that democracy has greatly failed as a form of governance. Democracy can be said to be faulty in the sense that it is a form of governance that it is always determined by what the majority wants and not what is good for the country. The question here is what will happen in a situation where the majority is wrong. This will mean that whatever will eventually take place will not be the best thing for the country at large. The majority can always be wrong as a result of misinformation or being fed with completely wrong information by influential figures for their own selfish gain. This will definit ely lead to a governance error that might haunt the country for decades affecting even generations that were not part of the faulty decision making (Diamond and Plattner 184). Democracy can also be said to be a highly expensive form of governance. There are a lot of resources that always go to literal waste during democratic processes. A country always spends a lot of money just trying to make sure that democratic elections are always free, fair, and accurate. Despite all these efforts, there are always complaints about elections not being free and fair. This would raise the question of whether democracy is really governance by the people as is commonly referred to. Other resources also go to waste in the form of resources used during election campaigns. These resources are usually used for the purpose of influencing the choices of the public during political elections. The resource used during the political campaign would rather be used for other activities that are much more profi table and productive. In comparison to a monarchy form of governance, democracy would be definitely unreasonable expensive. Democratic processes can also be said to be faulted by baseless preferences of leaders. Democratic elections involve a battle for supremacy of races, ethnic groups, religions and many other forms of grouping. People will always vote for certain candidates on the basis of their ethnicity, race, religion, and not their capability to be good leaders. This leads to situations where the ethnic, racial, or religious groups with the highest number of citizens always carry the day. The obvious result of such an election is a government that lacks diligence and expertise. As much as one group might pride of being successful during the elections, the consequences of having incompetent leaders will be faced by the whole country( Adler and Weismann 221). Democracy can lead to the imbalanced development in a country. Since the leaders are always elected by the majority, the y will always strive to those who voted for them at the expense of those who did not vote for them. For instance, if a leader was highly voted for in a certain region of the country and rejected in others, they will always tend to favor those who voted for them when it comes to developmental projects. This is mainly due to human nature, which makes it almost impossible for a person to respond to bad deeds with good ones. In the same manner, it will be