anonymity

[Phillip H. Zakas]

i see your point.  by 'targeted' in my comment, i meant looking for
transmissions from a particular person.  i suppose 'targeted' could also
mean looking at messages sent to a particular destination.

my specific comment is simply that I don't believe that either the
competency or the computing power necessary to watch every financial
transaction ($16T/day), fax, e-mail, phone call, ssl connection, etc. exists
in the areas we might think it exists.  whereas i do believe it's feasible
to track traffic to/from servers (and other destinations/data origins).

phillip

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM
[mailto:owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Ray Dillinger
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:17 AM
Cc: Cypherpunks
Subject: Re: anonymity



Regularly intercepting POTUS' international email is hardly
"untargeted".  I figure that's probably a fairly routine, if
small, part of Echelon.

			Bear

POTUS = "President Of The United States" for all who aren't
up on spook jargon.



On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 keyser-soze at hushmail.com wrote:

>doubtful.  they probably receive the email at the destination then alert
>the
>chain-of-jurisdiction for investigation. count me as a technical skeptic
>of
>an 'untargeted' echelon program.
>phillip
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM
>[mailto:owner-cypherpunks at Algebra.COM]On Behalf Of Mac Norton
>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:12 PM
>To: Blank Frank
>Cc: cypherpunks at toad.com
>Subject: Re: anonymity
>
>Intercepted by the CIA?  Do they regularly pre-screen POTUS's
>incoming international e-mail, or what?
>MacN
>
>>>This approach might make a good test for ZeroKnowledge resistance to
traffic
>analysis.  Since chain of evidence is useless for ZKS messages (if you
believe
>ZKS) only TA could finger the sender.  Any takers?
>
>ks