h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think it is mostly a nice and informational entry without going in too deep. However, I do have some comments about the beginning.

First, I think you should add a header 'Introduction'.
Second. In the introduction (and also later on) you use 'we'. Maybe this should be worked around to the third person.
Third. In the introduction you introduce cryptography as needed to be able to RELY on the information. IMHO cryptography is used when you don't want other people to read the information. The correctness is something else. Maybe you can add something that if you must not only be able to rely on the data, but you want to be sure it can only be read by the intended receiver, you need cryptography.
Last (at least for now). In the next paragraph, you state two benefits of modern crypography. I think these are not benefits, but requirements of a good cryptographic system. Also I think this part is better placed in the introduction.
Marijn

the h2g2 style is to not make use of an "introduction" header - but instead to take whatever is between the title and the first header as being clearly and opbviously a header. It is felt that this avoids wasting unnecessary space. "we" here refers to the whole of humanity, and seems reasonable. The relying on information is to do with trusting bits and bytes - not just that they are correct, but that they are secure, and they are what they say they are. It's not how a techie would phrase it, but it's fine in an introduction, I think

I'm not sure what is the problem with "benefits" - they are beneficial, after all.

Lucinda,
it looks like I had an attack by the greatest problem of information exchange: different interpretation of the same words.
You seem to imply more with your words than I see in them. So be it, and I have no further comments on the article as it is now. Just some new info.

There seems to be a new issue coming up with cryptography, that is not yet covered.
A number of governments, including the british, do not like it that people as you and me and maybe also some criminals can communicate safely behind good cryptography. So they are introducing laws that you are obliged to give your private key to a policeman, if he thinks he needs it to see whether you said or received something unlawfull. Not giving the key, or having lost it, can be punished by time in jail .
Think about it, and see if you want something about this issue in your article.

heh - and another - I'm not the author - that's Jeremy