Prev: solutions manual
Next: Finding out how secure a cipher is
From: Mok-Kong Shen on 29 Jul 2010 15:35

Elsewhere I learned that there was recently a news about a (as I
understood) new step to legally monitor the e-mail triffic of
citizens. I wonder why the officials are unaware that such efforts are
almost futile for them. For from the e-mails of honest people, any
analysis is certainly a waste of the time of both man and machine. Top
grade crooked people are as a rule also intelligent and would
communicate with stego etc. etc. and with accounts with faked identity
and from public internet access points. They could even exchange
encrypted messages over e.g. some alt.* groups, as was discussed many
years ago. Or do I gravely err, because the situations have changed in
the meantime much in favour of the officials?

Thanks.

M. K. Shen

---------------------------------------------------------------

For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall
have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken
away even that which he hath.

St. Matthew 25/29

From: unruh on 29 Jul 2010 15:53
On 2010-07-29, Mok-Kong Shen <mok-kong.shen(a)t-online.de> wrote:
>
> Elsewhere I learned that there was recently a news about a (as I
> understood) new step to legally monitor the e-mail triffic of
> citizens. I wonder why the officials are unaware that such efforts are
> almost futile for them. For from the e-mails of honest people, any

It is not futile. They can discover when the honest people are
displaying anti-governemtn attitudes.

> analysis is certainly a waste of the time of both man and machine. Top
> grade crooked people are as a rule also intelligent and would

Most crooked people are not "top grade".

> communicate with stego etc. etc. and with accounts with faked identity
> and from public internet access points. They could even exchange
> encrypted messages over e.g. some alt.* groups, as was discussed many
> years ago. Or do I gravely err, because the situations have changed in
> the meantime much in favour of the officials?

Control and showing the people who is boss.

>
> Thanks.
>
> M. K. Shen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall
> have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken
> away even that which he hath.
>
> St. Matthew 25/29
>
From: Gordon Burditt on 30 Jul 2010 06:04
>Elsewhere I learned that there was recently a news about a (as I
>understood) new step to legally monitor the e-mail triffic of
>citizens.

Citizens of what country? Actually, there's probably news about
this for many countries.

>I wonder why the officials are unaware that such efforts are
>almost futile for them. For from the e-mails of honest people, any
>analysis is certainly a waste of the time of both man and machine. Top

No, it isn't. For a blatantly dishonest official, private mail of
honest people may contain credit card numbers, something that they
can be blackmailed about (there are plenty of things that are not
*illegal* that are nevertheless embarassing and usable for blackmail),
or information that they can use to their advantage for insider
trading, among lots of other things.

For a not-quite-so-dishonest official (or political party), the
political opinions of individual voters may be usable to influence
elections. You send an individualized letter to each person claiming
that Senator Chamelion is for/against abortion, for/against
immigration, for/against higher funding for schools, etc, never
mind that his neighbor gets a letter claiming that Senator Chamelion
has just the opposite views. This sort of thing is already done
when opinions vary by region.

If you are against something another party is trying to do, wouldn't
inside information on how they plan to get it passed be valuable to
your party, which is trying to stop it?

Extensive spying can be used for market research, which might aid
your decisions to invest in the stock market. This might not even
be illegal except for the spying part. If you ask 100,000 people
about their thoughts about Android vs. the iPhone, then invest
accordingly, that's not illegal. Getting more accurate information
cheaper by spying (using government resources to do this) might
give you an unfair advantage over other investors.


>grade crooked people are as a rule also intelligent and would
>communicate with stego etc. etc. and with accounts with faked identity
>and from public internet access points. They could even exchange
>encrypted messages over e.g. some alt.* groups, as was discussed many
>years ago. Or do I gravely err, because the situations have changed in
>the meantime much in favour of the officials?

Officials acting in their role as security officers may not get
much out of universal spying, although there are always the idiot
criminals who come into the police station, drop a bag of cocaine
on the counter, and ask the officer to arrest his dealer for cutting
it.

Officials acting in their role as political party members can get
a heck of a lot out of spying (especially from spying on their
peers).

Officials acting in their role as private greedy dishonest citizens
can get a lot out of spying.


From: jbriggs444 on 30 Jul 2010 08:59
On Jul 30, 6:04 am, gordonb.vi...(a)burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> >Elsewhere I learned that there was recently a news about a (as I
> >understood) new step to legally monitor the e-mail triffic of
> >citizens.
>
> Citizens of what country?  Actually, there's probably news about
> this for many countries.
>
> >I wonder why the officials are unaware that such efforts are
> >almost futile for them. For from the e-mails of honest people, any
> >analysis is certainly a waste of the time of both man and machine. Top
>
> No, it isn't.  For a blatantly dishonest official, private mail of
> honest people may contain credit card numbers, something that they
> can be blackmailed about (there are plenty of things that are not
> *illegal* that are nevertheless embarassing and usable for blackmail),
> or information that they can use to their advantage for insider
> trading, among lots of other things.
>
> For a not-quite-so-dishonest official (or political party), the
> political opinions of individual voters may be usable to influence
> elections.  You send an individualized letter to each person claiming
> that Senator Chamelion is for/against abortion, for/against
> immigration, for/against higher funding for schools, etc, never
> mind that his neighbor gets a letter claiming that Senator Chamelion
> has just the opposite views.  This sort of thing is already done
> when opinions vary by region.
>
> If you are against something another party is trying to do, wouldn't
> inside information on how they plan to get it passed be valuable to
> your party, which is trying to stop it?
>
> Extensive spying can be used for market research, which might aid
> your decisions to invest in the stock market.  This might not even
> be illegal except for the spying part.  If you ask 100,000 people
> about their thoughts about Android vs. the iPhone, then invest
> accordingly, that's not illegal.  Getting more accurate information
> cheaper by spying (using government resources to do this) might
> give you an unfair advantage over other investors.
>
> >grade crooked people are as a rule also intelligent and would
> >communicate with stego etc. etc. and with accounts with faked identity
> >and from public internet access points. They could even exchange
> >encrypted messages over e.g. some alt.* groups, as was discussed many
> >years ago. Or do I gravely err, because the situations have changed in
> >the meantime much in favour of the officials?
>
> Officials acting in their role as security officers may not get
> much out of universal spying, although there are always the idiot
> criminals who come into the police station, drop a bag of cocaine
> on the counter, and ask the officer to arrest his dealer for cutting
> it.
>
> Officials acting in their role as political party members can get
> a heck of a lot out of spying (especially from spying on their
> peers).
>
> Officials acting in their role as private greedy dishonest citizens
> can get a lot out of spying.

The specific data that is being asked for (this time) is characterized
as recipient e-mail addresses on outbound mail and source
e-mail addresses on inbound mail. Along with "possibly
a user's browser history".

So it's not about e-mail content. It's about traffic analysis.

My personal belief is that the officials within the system
are not as overtly corrupt as Gordon makes them out to
be. You don't need to postulate evil men to explain an
organization that engages in evil behavior.

The guys promoting this policy are probably not
plotting to see who their neighbors are e-mailing
or what web-sites their opponents are visiting. Most
of them are probably at least somewhat sincere in
thinking that this is a good idea. [Catching a
terrorist and parading him on TV = good. Having
terrorists take out a famous target = bad.
Privacy = who cares as long as the public
isn't outraged until after the election]
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: solutions manual
Next: Finding out how secure a cipher is