zombied ypherpunks (Re: Email Certification?)
steve49152 at yahoo.ca
Tue May 3 10:32:09 PDT 2005
--- Tyler Durden <camera_lumina at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>Well, they could just tune in on Echelon, which really seems to be
> >reality. There is no need for "infinite" resources to do such a thing.
> Echelon ain't a radio, and not all members of TLAs have access. Indeed,
> can be damn sure that they are very careful to NOT share a lot of the
> Echelon-culled information. And unless you're involved in some very
> interesting operations, as a mere agitant you aren't going to merit
> of Echelon info.
How do you know?
> HOWEVER, even if they haven't focused the big microscope on you, this
A very good friend of mine once described what you call the "big
microphone" as the panopticon. Clearly this is not a new idea, and
consequently we may assume that the TLAs are well in advance of whatever
is known about global surveillance by the general public. Technical
sophisticates have, however, a distinct advantage here. Furthermore, as I
have stated previously, the use of information gleaned from a surveillance
effort leaks 'bits' about the surveillance action itself -- this is a
But, seeing as how the public is expected to live in a rather small
fantasy world of conceptual and information poverty, at least as such
relates to the activities of TLAs, we can assume that mathematical
realities will have zero correlation with politically motivated policies
in the public `sphere'.
> doesn't mean you don't merit "phishing" by someone (perhaps) who's in a
> local office and has decided he doesn't like you personally. Thus,
> lower-level & not "infinitely secure" efforts might be of some use.
> >Here is the fundamental misunderstanding. Your email is no "account".
> >are no place where your account is stored. The only thing that exists
> is an
> >endpoint, where you receive your mail. Before the mail reaches that
> >its's just TCP-packets on the wire.
> OK, what the heck are you talking about? You're telling me that
> hotmail/gmail is stored on my personal COMPUTER? Not even a
> campaign of disinformation would attempt to get that across. Are you
> like a
> 14-year-old boy or something?
It's likely that "he" is practising his stupidity in order to establish
the background of his mailing-list persona. Perhaps his messages also
carry coded `freight' of some kind intended for a certain class of reader.
If so, and if he uses perfect encryption for his coding scheme, we cannot
have any hope of decyphering what he is saying beyond the superficial
face-value of his text.
> The problem with Cypherpunks is that we're way too pre-occupied with
> "infinite security" scenarios. Of course, such a subject is of vital
> importance, but there are lower levels of threat (and appropriate
> that need to be examined. This "well they can break almost anything so
> even bother unless you're the Okie City B-*-m-b-*-r or somebody, and
> you'll need a faraday cage and colliding pulse mode-locked dye laser for
> quantum encryption" bullshit actually detracts from Cypherpunkly
> notions....it makes the use of encryption a red flag sticking out of a
> of unencrypted grey. And then, of course, in the off chance they can't
> actually break the message under that flag, they can merely send a guy
> with binoculars or whatever.
Don't forget about rubber-hose cryptanlysis. Rumour has it that method is
preferred in many cases since it makes the code-breakers feel good by way
of testosterone release.
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy