} At 10:38 AM 2/14/96 -0500, you wrote: [i.e. lwp@mail.msen.com == me] } > } >Eavesdropping and channel-blocking and physical-location-discovery are } >related threats to which most traditional data channels are susceptible. [snip] } >larger mirror. Then (under computer control) the various small mirrors } >on the laser table are rapidly inserted and withdrawn from the light beam, } >causing the laser beam to follow first one path, then another, then another } >through the (smoky) air -- all to the delight of the audience. } > } >This technology could easily be adapted to make a communication channel } >safer from the various threats of eavesdropping, interruption, and tracing. } >A single point-to-point channel could be made to follow various paths } >having common elements only VERY close to the endpoints. Better still, } >a network of more than two nodes could be constructed without needing to } >provide multiple transceivers at each node (and with possibly multiple } >beam paths between each pair). With known methods of routing and } >collision avoidance, we could thus not only route around any known opposition [snip] On Fri, 16 Feb 1996 00:03:38 -0800, gw <geeman@best.com> wrote: } KNOWN opposition ... hmmm. you're back to obscurity=security. } It's always expensive to eavesdrop (tapped any fiber cables in pressure } jackets recently?) ... [snip] I was also thinking about security by redundancy. It is fairly inexpensive for an opponent simply to cut a fiber run. The scheme I'm talking about allows you to provide additional signal paths much more cheaply than the opponent can interrupt them. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "He who buys for price alone is :: Lou Poppler <lwp@mail.msen.com> :: [the suits'] lawful prey." :: http://www.msen.com/~lwp/ :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: -- John Ruskin