Review Finds No Answers to Mystery of Havana Syndrome

[Stefan Claas]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:36 PM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stefan, I read your reply here as an attempt to disregard and devalue what I was mentioning, and I was thinking, and realised that usually people are just not considering the same things.  It's hard to remember this, and I'm sorry I interpreted you this way.
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021, 12:08 PM Stefan Claas <spam.trap.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
Hi Karl,

simply said, If I communicate with you on a sphere the third party on
that sphere can
intercept our communications, when it spans like a closed mesh around
the sphere.

When we both communicate on that sphere from one dot not physically connected
to the other dot, and third parties do not know which dots we both use, because
they are not connected, it is IMHO not so easy to intercept us.

As you may know, or not if you have for example an Amazon account you can
purchase there security envelopes, which shows you that a third party had
opened the envelope. I had these discussions long ago on the GnuPG
List.

Best regards and Good Night
Stefan


>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 5:08 PM Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Karl,
>>
>> > > - Stefan's email account also talks strangely, often expressing overt
>> > support of centralised tech without logical explanation.  I don't know
>> > why anybody would do that.
>>
>> Not sure what you mean. I always supported decentralization
>> in the global and centralized Internet (a mesh that spans
>> around the globe as a single closed item,
>
>
> I don't see how "spanning the globe" is "centralized" or how the internet is "closed" and it's hard for me to take the expression seriously when I read it on this list.  I do see that there is a lot of bounding around e.g. the IP and TCP protocols and certain physical infrastructure, and that it's classist in that you need access to technology to use it, and how dependence on these introduces similar problems as centralization.  Is this what you meant?
>
> I still interpret the internet as a point to point routing system with fault management.  When that's not true, we see it as a break.
>
>> compared to decentralized
>> post offices where users can send an encrypted letter from
>> country a to b while the rest can't intercept.)
>
>
> When you say "can't intercept" here, I don't know how to interpret it.  Letters can be physically followed at a human pace and are poorly secured, and delivery is managed by government-ordered bodies that can be authorised to search them.  I've had my mail copied and also opened in transit, myself.  When I was a kid, I looked inside others' mailboxes for fun.  It's hard to encrypt an envelope, etc.
>
> I do think postal encrypted messages are really great and it's quite heartening to read of you doing this.  Far, far easier to hack your network interface to upload video of your face, than your stack of stamps and envelopes.
>
> Post offices strike me as centralised, messaging in general decentralised, maybe I am wrong.
>
>> BTW. Not sure if you have access to a good library in
>> your local area. If so, check out the book "The Matrix"
>> from 1990, from John S. Quaterman, which shows you
>> what decentralization is when it comes to global computer
>> networks, compared to Democrat Al Gore's commercial
>> Internet. ;-)
>>
>> > Hope you both are well, sorry you bumped.
>>
>> No problem Karl and I am fine.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Stefan