changed the file structure

3 files changed, 97 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/src/writing/cryptography.php b/src/writing/cryptography.php
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6c36572
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/writing/cryptography.php
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+<?php

+$title = "Principles of Crytography for Data Security";

+require($_SERVER["DOCUMENT_ROOT"] . "/head.php");

+require($_SERVER["DOCUMENT_ROOT"] . "/header.php");

+?>

+<p>As the amount of life spent online continues to increase, a great deal of private information is naturally

+    being transmitted: banking details, medical records, business correspondences. Where once these exchanges of

+    data would have occured between a small set of individuals in a shared space, they now happen between

+    continents, through hundreds of servers and over complex network infrastructures. It is a system that cannot

+    be fully accounted for by any individual, and so the means of transmission are insecure--much like having a

+    letter transmitted by a series of couriers, the data is liable to be intercepted or modified. And so both

+    parties in the exchange take on a risk that may prohibit especially critical data from being sent.

+    Cryptography is the study of data obfuscation--a means of making a message readable only by some. It is the

+    answer to the question "when the means of transmission cannot be trusted, how can information be conveyed

+    securely?</p>

+<p>There are two classes of encryption: symmetric and asymmetric. Symmetric encryption allows a message to be

+    encoded and decoded with the same piece of information, or key. The ancient Caesar cipher is an example of

+    this; an arbitrary number acting as the key was agreed upon by both parties, and every letter in the message

+    was shifted through the alphabet by that amount. It could easily be decoded by anyone who knew the key by

+    simply shifting the letters backward through the alphabet. Simple algorithms such as the Caesar cipher are

+    vulnerable to various attacks due to the patterns that they create in the ciphertext. A given letter may

+    always be encoded in the same way, meaning that the key could be compromised if the attacker gained access

+    to the plaintext and ciphertext forms of the same message. And a message could be decrypted without the key

+    by recognizing repeated patterns in the ciphertext representing common words. More advanced symmetric

+    encryption methods--like the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) algorithm, developed for the US National

+    Institute of Standards and Technologies--disrupt patterns in the message to prevent these types of attacks.

+</p>

+<p>Symmetric encryption is an imperfect solution in the internet age. Because it requires both parties to know

+    the same secret key, those parties must have a secure form of communication already established. In the days

+    of Caesar, this key exchange could be performed confidentially by two individuals in close proximity. When

+    encryption is used on the internet, it cannot be assumed that the communicating parties will have had any

+    physical interactions--and it would be impractical to expect every new customer of an online banking service

+    to perform a physical key exchange. Asymmetric encryption solves this problem by removing the key exchange.

+    Instead of encrypting and decrypting a message with the same key, an asymmetric encryption algorithm has a

+    keypair, comprising a public key, used for encrypting a message, and a private key, used for decrypting a

+    message. The keys are so named because the private key is never shared, while the public key can be

+    broadcast widely. </p>

+<p>Typically, it demands more processing power to encrypt and decrypt messages with an asymmetric encryption

+    implementation than a comparable symmetric one. For this reason, it is desirable to use symmetric encryption

+    for most communications. An asymmetric implementation such as the Rivest--Shamir--Adleman (RSA) system is

+    used to perform the key exchange. One of the devices will broadcast its public RSA key to the other, which

+    will respond by generating an AES key, encrypting it with that RSA key, and returning it. This method of key

+    exchange is secure, even if every network packet is intercepted. Once the devices share an AES key, they can

+    communicate with the more efficient symmetric encryption method.</p>

+<?php require($_SERVER["DOCUMENT_ROOT"] . "/footer.php"); ?>
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/src/writing/index.php b/src/writing/index.php
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..894f123
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/writing/index.php
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+<?php

+$title = "Writing";

+require($_SERVER["DOCUMENT_ROOT"] . "/head.php");

+require($_SERVER["DOCUMENT_ROOT"] . "/header.php");

+?>

+<p>

+    This is the index page for my writing. Obviously, if you follow the links below, you can read things I've

+    written.

+    Whether or not you want to do that is up to you.

+</p>

+<ul>

+    <li>

+        <h3><a href="cryptography.php">Cryptography</a> /* Keep yourself safe */</h3>

+    </li>

+    <li>

+        <h3><a href="moralrealism.php">Moral realism</a> /* (It's not real)  */</h3>

+    </li>

+</ul>

+<?php require($_SERVER["DOCUMENT_ROOT"] . "/footer.php"); ?>

diff --git a/src/writing/moralrealism.php b/src/writing/moralrealism.php
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..069d50d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/writing/moralrealism.php
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+<?php

+$title = "Principles of Crytography for Data Security";

+require($_SERVER["DOCUMENT_ROOT"] . "/head.php");

+require($_SERVER["DOCUMENT_ROOT"] . "/header.php");

+<p>

+	Moral realism is, in essence, the concept that moral statements  deal with a real thing. That is to say, a statement such as "murder is wrong" is a statement of fact

+in much the same way that "the sky is blue" is. As a proposition, it could be said "the statement "murder is wrong" is true." Generally speaking, moral realism is the

+default position in most societies today. The assumption is that when one makes a moral statement, they are making a statement of fact. Our legal system attempts

+to find the truth of morality, and we condemn others when their morals are incorrect.

+Others assert this is nonsense, and multiple arguments are employed to that end. While I do understand the reasons one would argue in favour of moral realism,

+and while I intend to present them fairly, I remain unconvinced by them. 

+</p>

+<p>

+	The first argument for moral realism is a descriptive one: people already use a realistic framework.

+Consider a preference, say for food. Perhaps you do not like the taste of broccoli. You can imagine an alternate version of yourself, exactly the same except for a love of broccoli.

+Imagining this is probably not disturbing. Though you may not care for broccoli, you are not bothered by the possibility of that changing.

+Consider instead a moral preference. Likely, you do not look fondly on slavery. If you were to have been born some 300 years earlier, it is quite likely that you would see no problem with slavery

+Most people have a much stronger reaction to a version of them with different morals than a version with different preferences. It is then argued that this is evidence that morals are not merely preference. It is objectively wrong to support slavery.

+I take an alternate explanation: moral preferences are part of your identity. To change your morals is to change who you are, which explains why it is more upsetting to consider.

+One could develop a taste for broccoli and still be otherwise exactly the same. But for most people, slavery conflicts with a great deal of other deeply held ideas--you'd have to change who you are.

+Here is a prescriptive argument for moral realism: some sense of objective morality is necessary for society to function. The justice system cannot operate on a purely relativistic framework, because it must dole out punishment according to some set of standards.

+If everyone had wildly different ideas about morality or did not believe in morality at all, everything would fall apart.

+While this is true, it does not change my feeing. In much the same way that one might argue belief in god is a good idea (Pascal's wager), I still cannot induce myself to believe.

+</p>

+<p>

+	There are also a few positive arguments against moral reality. The most convincing, to me, is that morality is evidently immeasurable. A framework purporting a thing to be real, but being unable to measure that thing is useless.

+If it is the case that a moral belief can be incorrect, there is no means by which to determine whether it is. In other words, the truth value of a moral proposition cannot be known.

+From this point, there are a few different paths. Error theorists hold that moral propositions attempt to express truth, or, in other words, that a moral claim is a statement of fact. However, error theorists

+state that the truth value of those claims are always false. Therefore, anyone making a moral claim is in error to do so.

+Emotivists, instead, argue that moral claims do not attempt to express truth. Instead, they express emotion. Saying "murder is wrong" is the same as saying "boo! murder." It is neither true nor false.

+I align more with emotivism, as it seems to better describe the function of moral claims. It does appear to be the case that moral claims express emotion primarily.

+</p>

+<?php require($_SERVER["DOCUMENT_ROOT"] . "/footer.php"); ?>