On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Kyle Maxwell <[1]kylem@xwell.org>
   wrote:

   On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:33 AM, Lodewijk andr de la porte
   <[2]l@odewijk.nl> wrote:
   > Additional tricks such as delayed further transmission, network path
   mixing,
   > etc. are all possible with what I have in my paper and should be
   (easily)
   > doable in Tor.
   >
   > I never really understood the problem with traffic analysis.

     Trickle connections are an interesting idea and will work for some
     applications where high latency and possibly low throughput are
     okay.
     I look forward to reading that paper.
     Though re: traffic analysis, if your traffic stands out too much
     (i.e.
     for relatively low n on a global scale), then you'll still have
     issues[0]. And the devil's in the details, as Tom Ritter's fine work
     around AAM[1] has shown.
     [0]: Obligatory XKCD: [3]http://xkcd.com/1105/
     [1]: [4]http://ritter.vg/blog-deanonymizing_amm.html
     --
     @kylemaxwell

   Lest we forget: WASTE had 'chaff' communication capabilities.
   The problem is that bandwidth isn't free; also standing out ;)
   --
   [5]Twitter | [6]LinkedIn | [7]GitHub | [8]TravisBiehn.com

References

   1. mailto:kylem@xwell.org
   2. mailto:l@odewijk.nl
   3. http://xkcd.com/1105/
   4. http://ritter.vg/blog-deanonymizing_amm.html
   5. https://twitter.com/tbiehn
   6. http://www.linkedin.com/in/travisbiehn
   7. http://github.com/tbiehn
   8. http://www.travisbiehn.com/