Currently, the effective protection that can be achieved with publicly available cryptographic technology is highly questionable. Advanced computer technology is likely to be kept out of the public domain in order to keep the intelligence services of the rulers at the forefront of com­put­ing power. In addition, software and hardware back­doors probably exist. Officially recommended stand­ard­ized encryption methods may have inherent mathematical weaknesses: Why should the intelligence services of the Wes­tern and Eastern hemispheres recommend and give away self-developed secure algorithms whose use would make their central work, interception and industrial es­pio­nage, impossible?

The higher-ranking organizations of those families who stand above the law most probably have an incomparably strong calculating power, which normal users have little to oppose. However, some of the potential attackers under the law can be fended off. The communication security can be increased at least within a certain framework, by consistent use of cryptographic signing.

All my e-mails are always signed cryptographically, with PGP/MIME or a separate signature. I never send un­signed e-mails without any exception. Signatures need to be verified, for example with GnuPG GNU Privacy Guard, www.gnupg.org, MS Windows version: www.gpg4win.org. I only use the key listed in the imprint. PeterJockisch.de is the only official source for my key.

To view a name and a cryptographical checksum, is not sufficient. For the authen­ti­ca­tion, the signature must be veri­fied. After the initial activation, modern e-mail agents fully and au­to­mat­ically verify in the background.

For the qualified electronic signature, most often, only hardware-based (chipcard) class-3-certificates, certified by legally recognized CAs are accepted by law. However, the re­quired hardware and software infrastructure (avail­able card readers, supported operating sys­tem, e-mail agent, software) is throughout of proprietary nature. This means not check­a­ble and visible and thus, risky under security aspects. If attached to your email, I maybe will use such public X.509- or OpenPGP cer­tifi­cates with my MUA – However, I myself do not sign with such cer­tifi­cates

Some recipients are not familiar with practical encryption and signing, or they have no pos­si­bil­i­ty to use it in their country. In these cases, in addition to the signed e-mail, I write the mes­sage seperately in a “.txt” or “.pdf” file and publicize its checksum in the checksum blog section on PeterJockisch.de, combined with the date of dispatch, sending time and initials indicating the document.

Checksums for files can be created with a single right mouse click, for example with Free Software like Cyohash or Jacksum. More information about the application pos­sibil­ities can be found in the introductory article “Practical application of cryptographic checksums”.

For verification, the checksum of the attached “.txt” or “.pdf” file must first be formed. You can then check the checksum blog area of PeterJockisch.de to see whether there is an entry with the corresponding checksum for the e-mail date in question. Checksums of my e-mails are published there and only there, nowhere else:

http://www.peterjockisch.de/blog_en/checksums-blog.html.

My e-mail texts do not contain any data on the checksum. That would be completely sense­lessly. Everyone could write an arbitrary file and subsequently copy a checksum of the blog sec­tion into the e-mail text.

SSL/TLS certified site sections will follow.

Principally, on a business level, I do not communicate by telephone which is unsuitable for proof of identity. With regard to the authenticity of spoken language, it is sug­gested to every­one, to inform about “Adobe Voco”, for ex­am­ple by a Google search for “Adobe Voco”.

Telephone information is principally not given. I do not own a mo­bile phone and no fax machine and I deny re­spec­tive contracts or offers.

Due to telephony being unsuitable for proof of identity and the high risk of im­per­so­na­tion, I only conduct phone calls with immediate family, using landline network only. I prin­ci­pal­ly do not use mobile telephony, SMS or fax.

In many fields (energy production, communication, health etc.), there are beneficial free technologies, methods and procedures, which are not permitted, which are to the present day held blocked. However, future generations will be able to use these technologies and methods.

The currently allowed telephone mobile communication technologies have inherently numerous criti­cal aspects, which are documented in numerous films and articles, amongst oth­ers in the following lecture (held in German) as well as in a documentary:

Further information are also available on diagnose-funk.org and www.chemtrail.de, among others in the “Mo­bil­funk­bro­schü­re” of the comprising information site Chemtrail.de: Do­ku­men­te → Do­ku­men­ten­ar­chiv (PDF‘s+Doc‘s).

The national and international websites of the link lists there, “Links” and “Links zu”, as well as numerous other websites, also including the column “Cell Phone Dangers” of the news portal rense.com, contain detailed in­for­ma­tion on the subject.

Critical illustrations on the cell phone technology which is permitted by the rulers are avail­a­ble at dees​il​lus​tra​tion.​com .