While commenters here will be quick to point out that the font doesn't actually provide protection, you have to realize that there are people who will actually perceive the font as offering protection. Setting the record straight is just as important as recognizing the artistic message behind the act. We can appreciate the intent and the result, but we should also not delude ourselves that it has purpose beyond simply conveying an artistic message.
What's interesting is that this actually enriches the post-modern interpretation of the artwork, rather than detracting from it. Not only does the work demonstrate the superficial rejection of the all-seeing police state, but to those who understand and appreciate the technical aspects of the digitization of data, it also demonstrates deeper opposing meanings that are equally valid:
- that despite the effort of the common man, it is practically impossible to hide from the panopticon;
- that the commercialization and publication of a "standard" way to avoid breaches of privacy (i.e. a monoculture of privacy applications, like how so many people turn to 1Password) inevitably lead to breaches of privacy due to the shared central point of weakness; and
- that, ultimately, the assumption of and reliance on a shallow culture of privacy ("oh, just use PGP and you're safe!") is insufficient.