Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies
Major Variola (ret)
mv at cdc.gov
Wed Jul 28 21:34:59 PDT 2004
At 03:52 PM 7/27/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
>>In the *public* lit.
>Well, perhaps but perhaps not. Burst-mode signaling, transceivers, and
>networking technology are a good example. If you see DISA, NSA, and
>all working with the acknoledged experts inthe academic field, and if
>see them spending $$$ on burst-mode testbeds, then it's clear that
>some issues they haven't solved.
You're right on this, I admit. Its clear that things like smart dust
and gait recognition and
autonomous cruising across the desert are not things the Beast has yet.
>There just happen to be
>physical limitations. But I have zero doubt that the NSA can't make a
>that is siginificantly more efficient than what I can buy off the
I'm not one to dispute physics. However most professional skeptics
(eg cryptographers) grant the adversary anything from 2 to 10 x the
COTS tech. Do you *really* think the NSA's DesCrack was built
with old Sun chassis like Gilmore, Kocher, et als???
Remember that the spookfabs don't have to contend with *economics and
They can use *radioisotopes*. Subs can lay independant cable.
Not a lot of folks walk along the undersea cables,
to say nothing of how bribable telecom folks are.
Conservativism sometimes means being liberal in modelling others'
Be Useful -the Baron
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy