RE: RE: [privacy] Frank Rich: Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up?

[Drsolly <drsollyp () drsolly com>]

> Huh?  There you go again assuming..... Neither you nor I know what level
> of sophistication a particular enemy organization works at...  Look at

Like any group of people, there will be the more sophisticated, and the
less. Some of the less sophisticated, won't be able to read or understand
English (and possibly not be able to read anything), so publication of
information in the English-speaking media, wouldn't make any difference to 
them.

Of course, those less sophisticated will get information second-hand from 
the more sophisticated (able to read and write English). On the other 
hand, the more sophisticated ones that will be passing on this 
information, will already know that phones can be tapped and logged. 

So what's the balance here? Maybe there's some that are sophisticated 
enough to be able to make use of this information, but not so sophisticaed 
that they already know. Those people will be deterred from using 
telephones to communicate, which will make it somewhat more difficult for 
them to hatch their plots, and possibly more difficult for the police to 
catch them, if the police do indeed get any value from phone logging.

Disclaimer: I once helped catch a criminal by analysing the logs generated 
by a corporate switchboard. We knew the location that the crook stole 
from, and the time, and he was dumb enough to make a phone call from that 
office at that time. So, we knew the number he called, and thereby knew 
who the thief was (a security guard).

On the whole, I'm thinking that the advantages of telling the enemy to 
stop using the phone outweigh the disadvantages. But, on the other hand, 
they probably aren't listening anyway.

> Its too bad that the media is not supportive of the war on
> terror(amazing that its so clear where they stand...). Things might be
> different. The Iraq occupation would probably have already be over. 

I find it breathtaking that anyone would blame "the media" that the war in 
Iraq continues, and I'd like to hear the rationale for that.
 
> Funny how the media wont report comparisons and contrasts of what the
> government did in WW2 in a real declared war..  Interrment, censorship,
> loads of real domestic surveillance.. America knew what was at stake
> then.

America knew what was at stake because they'd seen what happened in
London. Not once, at one place and at one date, with 3000 casualties, but
again and again, and in cities all over England with many many thousand
casualties (plus they had a taste of that at Pearl Harbour). What was at
stake in WW2 was much, much more than what is at stake now, and that's why
(despite the rhetoric), America (and England) are not actually fighting a
war against the terrorists.

If it were a war, then we wouldn't be trading with the enemy.

If it were a war, we'd have conscription.

If it were a war, we'd have more casualties from the war than from the 
roads.

> Personal Disclaimer: I cannot hide my bias. I did 12 years in the Air
> Force working with lots of programs that we're touching on. I so wish I
> could comment on them, but unlike the other CIA person who feels that
> their own conscience trumps the national security of the USA, I'm happy
> to fullfill my oath of secrecy. The one thing I have learned in my
> experience is this: Tin foil on!!   IF you have nothing to hide, you
> have nothing to worry about....

I have lots to hide. And I'm not telling you what that is or why I want to 
hide it, except to point out that people put curtains on their bathrooms 
and lock the toilet door, not because they're doing anything illegal, but 
because they simply don't want other people to watch them doing what 
they're doing.

> I cant wait for the responses..
 
You could, and did, wait. And now your wait is rewarded.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.