There are two reasons as to why a weak encryption can be worse than no encryption at all: the first being a sense of overconfidence that can prove fatal if the encryption is decrypted and the second tipping off decryptors who often become more cautious and further scrutinize your messages. As explicitly outlined in the book, Mary Queen of Scot’s overconfidence clearly demonstrates the negatives of not creating a strong cipher. By disregarding caution and placing misguided faith in a weak cipher, she inadvertently revealed more information than she would have had she exercised caution. It’s also necessary to note that Mary Queen believed she had a strong cipher, thus providing one more reason as to why caution must always be exercised even if you believe your code to be unbreakable. This strain of thought can actually be applied to a multitude of situations: when engaging in a secretive activity or one that you would not prefer others to know of, it’s better to err on the side of caution.

But perhaps more importantly, a bad cipher may warn the enemy of an impending code. A seemingly legible message that holds a deeper meaning may be more deeply scrutinized if the decryptor suspects a cipher at play. This can be even more dangerous as a heightened sense of awareness and caution could lead to both direct and indirect long-term effects for sender and recipient. Thus, no encryption can often be more effective than a poorly-made one.

It’s necessary in an increasingly complex and secretive world that people realize that whatever codes they create can be broken by online tools accessible to billions. It is both important and necessary to exercise restraint and caution when sending hidden messages – failure to do so may result in harsher penalties than if you had not attempted to encode your message at all.