Email tapping by ISPs, forwarder addresses, and crypto proxies

Major Variola (ret) mv at
Wed Jul 28 21:34:59 PDT 2004

At 03:52 PM 7/27/04 -0400, Tyler Durden wrote:
>Variola 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
there are
>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 mailing list