i see your point. by 'targeted' in my comment, i meant looking for
transmissions from a particular person. i suppose 'targeted' could also
mean looking at messages sent to a particular destination.
my specific comment is simply that I don't believe that either the
competency or the computing power necessary to watch every financial
transaction ($16T/day), fax, e-mail, phone call, ssl connection, etc. exists
in the areas we might think it exists. whereas i do believe it's feasible
to track traffic to/from servers (and other destinations/data origins).
phillip
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Dillinger
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:17 AM
Cc: Cypherpunks
Subject: Re: anonymity
Regularly intercepting POTUS' international email is hardly
"untargeted". I figure that's probably a fairly routine, if
small, part of Echelon.
Bear
POTUS = "President Of The United States" for all who aren't
up on spook jargon.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>doubtful. they probably receive the email at the destination then alert
>the
>chain-of-jurisdiction for investigation. count me as a technical skeptic
>of
>an 'untargeted' echelon program.
>phillip
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mac Norton
>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 5:12 PM
>To: Blank Frank
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: anonymity
>
>Intercepted by the CIA? Do they regularly pre-screen POTUS's
>incoming international e-mail, or what?
>MacN
>
>>>This approach might make a good test for ZeroKnowledge resistance to
traffic
>analysis. Since chain of evidence is useless for ZKS messages (if you
believe
>ZKS) only TA could finger the sender. Any takers?
>
>ks
