| So it is possible to jam the 'spread spectrum' radios that the | US miltary nazis use? | | It's possible, say, to jam the control links of the nazis' | drones? Thank you, Mr. Godwin. --dan

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:11:27 -0500 dan@geer.org wrote:

...

| So it is possible to jam the 'spread spectrum' radios that the | US miltary nazis use? | | It's possible, say, to jam the control links of the nazis' | drones?

Thank you, Mr. Godwin. --dan

On 11/26/14, 6:13 PM, Juan wrote:

Dan, can't you answer the question?

Or perhaps you don't want to answer the question and compromise the abilities of your nazi friends?

Did Dan Geer just troll Juan for the holidays? gf -- Gregory Foster || gfoster@entersection.org @gregoryfoster <> http://entersection.com/

Dnia czwartek, 27 listopada 2014 03:10:11 grarpamp pisze:

Characterization of applied crypto to nazi purpose is society, on topic.

I did nazi that coming. Honestly, the word "nazi" was absolutely unnecessary in the question about jamming US military, and served only the purpose of getting the heat of the discussion up. Which it failed, thanks to Mr Godwin and Mr Geer. :) -- Pozdr rysiek

The word you're looking for is "fascist". The Nazis were one particular expression and culture of fascist, by no means the only one and certainly not the last. I happen to disagree with the supposed primacy of Godwin's Law because the Nazis are a cultural touchstone on the horrors of fascism in practice, a thing we should all remain vigilant upon. A friend pointed out to me that more people have died of fascism than gun crime, and that (until recently) civil gun ownership was a good preventative measure against fascism. I was never against small arms ownership per se, but it put the argument for civil ownership of rifles in perspective for me. With Drones everywhere these days, I don't think rifles matter anymore, though; so it's moot as far as I'm concerned. Not being a violent person by nature, I'd like to think that our future solutions against fascism are social and network-based, but there's room to discuss whether civil access to drones and other automated weapons will play a role against fascist uprisings; if the Rifle was the standard of anti-fascism in the past, is the drone the standard now? Or is it the ubiquitous camera? I'd rather think the latter, but cameras don't seem to stop militarised "police" from assaulting civilians, they just cover their badges and storm-trooper onwards*. In the ideal case, we find a way to undermine this violence. But, when the fascists come to round up their subject of persecution du jour, I do believe those people should be entitled to self defence. Just some evening thoughts, sorry. *It was only when observing the behaviour of US/UK police towards civilians, particularly the former, that I realised how lucky we are in Ireland to have an unarmed police force whose title "Garda Siochána" literally means "Guardians of the Peace". They're prone to ego trips, sure, but unarmed citizens don't get 10-round clips emptied into them, ever. On 27/11/14 21:01, Juan wrote:

On Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:49:24 +0100 rysiek wrote:

...

Dnia czwartek, 27 listopada 2014 03:10:11 grarpamp pisze:

...

Characterization of applied crypto to nazi purpose is society, on topic.

I did nazi that coming. Honestly, the word "nazi" was absolutely unnecessary

Your loyalty for the US nazi governemnt is touching rysiek.

...

in the question about jamming US military, and served only the purpose of getting the heat of the discussion up.

Which it failed, thanks to Mr Godwin and Mr Geer. :)

...

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Gregory Foster wrote:

...

Did Dan Geer just troll Juan for the holidays?

we all celebrate in preferred personal ways, :P On 11/27/14, grarpamp wrote:

Jammin is crypto, on topic... So continuing on topic... I'd bet there are papers somewhere about the difficulty in jammin true spread spectrum crypto stuff. Perhaps HERFing the receiver junction is better option if in range.

here's the game: a. you control power b. you control range c. you control complexity so spreading spectrum farther, gets you lobes outside selective denial of service. but range can also extend to beam form in addition to beam width. power, of course, a similar game of effort - rise above the elevated noise floor for the win. a different type of attack and avoidance, in coding complexity, even up to logical protocol DoS. thus, to be the most difficult to deter, you would max all three: very high powered, very wide band,complex coded and efficient cognitive links over MIMO beam forming foundation. not long ago such requirements were comical. recently they became economically not completely infeasible. one day, eminently portable.. :) best regards and nazi holidays,

On 11/28/14, Cathal Garvey wrote:

To clarify on your "complexity" argument, are you saying that the POTUS-parade may be employing technology that detects other devices by their output signatures, then fires a noise-beam specifically at them to maximise power delivery and minimise energy costs/unnecessary interference?

to clarify, the POTUS jammin' described by OP is a simple, and brute case. however, there is precedent for "intelligent jamming", where attempts to avoid the specific DoS using wide band, complex encoding would be met with a specific wide-band, complex response telling you to get stuffed. these systems cooperate together, and surely countermeasures are in place if you evade the trivial measures. note that avoiding POTUS jammin' is a violation of FCC regs, #include etc,...

If that were the case, then a shielded, passive receiver ought to be OK,

a shielded, passive receiver would be overwhelmed by the brute flood.

For my part, I just doubt they're using intelligent jamming because cost isn't really a factor in their requirements, is it? They can just blare out on all the frequencies they care about,

yup.

How much power is needed to jam at the frequency band you described? We're talking about a cavalcade that could, if they considered it necessary, employ a portable nuke! Power ain't a limiting factor! :)

they probably use a few tens of watts EIRP at most, unless they need to react to a perceived threat to penetrate that barrier. military systems go to many thousands of watts. best regards,

On 11/29/14, Juan wrote:

... Excuse my ignorance, but wouldn't a shielded receiver be a useless receiver?

not a bad question; you don't appreciate variable attenuation until you've used it effectively to locate an emitter or test specific boundary conditions. also note that shielding may be partial to eliminate or deflect emissions from a given direction. best regards,

Dnia środa, 26 listopada 2014 18:48:24 Gregory Foster pisze:

On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 17:11:27 -0500 dan@geer.org wrote:

...

...

| So it is possible to jam the 'spread spectrum' radios that

the | US miltary nazis use?

| It's possible, say, to jam the control links of the nazis' | drones?

Thank you, Mr. Godwin. --dan

On 11/26/14, 6:13 PM, Juan wrote:

...

Dan, can't you answer the question?

Or perhaps you don't want to answer the question and compromise the abilities of your nazi friends?

Did Dan Geer just troll Juan for the holidays?

God, Win! -- Pozdr rysiek