On 9/3/20 11:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

> People would start transmitting terabytes of genuinely random data to
> provide the NSA with something to do.

Um, funny that you mention it. I already do exactly this. I have set up
scripts to send fake data that looks like encrypted goodies. I've been
doing it for years.

It is easy to set up several tor hidden services and have them talk to
each other with randomly-timed, random gibberish while I do my browsing
from one of them through a double Tor tunnel.

Sending PGP-encrypted, fake messages to government email addresses
through anonymous remailers is another tactic. Put 'leaked' or
'classified' or 'top secret' or 'whistleblower report' in the subject or
in the clear with the message and you're good to go. Encrypt them to a
temporary public key then scrub the keys.

I presume (and I hope) that I have wasted a lot of the spooks' time over
the years.

Ain't I a stinker?

--

Pepe LePew

On 25/11/2021 16:55, Pepe LePew wrote:
> On 9/3/20 11:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
>> People would start transmitting terabytes of genuinely random data to
>> provide the NSA with something to do.
>
> Um, funny that you mention it. I already do exactly this. I have set up
> scripts to send fake data that looks like encrypted goodies. I've been
> doing it for years.

If it's distinguishable from random, it doesn't look like encrypted
goodies. And if it isn't, it doesn't look like anything.

>
> It is easy to set up several tor hidden services and have them talk to
> each other with randomly-timed, random gibberish

Randomly re-opening an 18-month-old thread is easy too. That doesn't
mean it's bright.

<snip>

> I presume (and I hope) that I have wasted a lot of the spooks' time over
> the years.

They're not interested. If they want to know your secrets, they have
more cost-effective (and painful) techniques to find them out than
trying to decrypt your gibberish.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On 11/25/21 11:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 16:55, Pepe LePew wrote:
>> On 9/3/20 11:08 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>>> People would start transmitting terabytes of genuinely random data to
>>> provide the NSA with something to do.
>>
>> Um, funny that you mention it. I already do exactly this. I have set up
>> scripts to send fake data that looks like encrypted goodies. I've been
>> doing it for years.
>
> If it's distinguishable from random, it doesn't look like encrypted
> goodies. And if it isn't, it doesn't look like anything.
>
>>
>> It is easy to set up several tor hidden services and have them talk to
>> each other with randomly-timed, random gibberish
>
> Randomly re-opening an 18-month-old thread is easy too. That doesn't
> mean it's bright.

Does it then mean mean commenting about the obvious is bright? Do you
tend to nitpick as a means of trying to elevate yourself above other people?

Do you spend your time isolating and attacking the village idiot so you
can look clever? Do you fill this group up with critique of the usual
crank's drivel while you are not innovating any thing?

Do your comments here are add anything of value to the art of
cryptology? Or do your comments distract from fruitful labor in that regard?

Is the purpose of your posts here is to elevate yourself over others who
are already in the gutter? If one can't be king of Rome can he at least
be king of the royal outhouse?

> <snip>
>
>> I presume (and I hope) that I have wasted a lot of the spooks' time over
>> the years.
>
> They're not interested. If they want to know your secrets, they have
> more cost-effective (and painful) techniques to find them out than
> trying to decrypt your gibberish.

"They're not interested?" Since when did you become an apologist and
propagandist for the empire? Are you a moldy Angloid Canzcuck? serious
question. Are you?

Everyone in here with two brain cells to rub together knows that the
intelligence services don't just look for the needle in the haystack.
They take the whole haystack. If they're not interested in everyone's
communication then why are they taking the whole haystack?

If "they're not interested" in people's encrypted gibberish then what of
PRISM, XKeyScore, Echelon, Shadownet, Operation Glowing Symphony, and
billion-dollar IIA protocols? Do you believe everyone in this group is
that ignorant? Or are you that ignorant? Big reveal, people. Choose one.

--

Pepe LePew

On 25/11/2021 18:46, Pepe LePew wrote:

<snip>

>
> Do your comments here are add anything of value to the art of
> cryptology?

37 09 0B 53 1C 4F 01 57 1B 45 0C 16 16 53 00 17
04 01 4B 00

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within