From: hiscdcj@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Dwayne)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 07:26:49 PDT
To: trebor@foretune.co.jp
Subject: Re: Spread-spectrum net (vulnerability of)
In-Reply-To: <9310090132.AA08927@dink.foretune.co.jp>
Message-ID: <9310121422.AA25737@lux.latrobe.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


>You can put up such a network, but given that your boxes have to receive
>the signal, it will be detectable (but not understandable) to 3rd parties.

That is why we try to make them as cheaply as possible. Then if they
are hard to get hold of (hidden/camouflaged/stuck up cliffs and flagpoles)
the cost to retrieve them will be prohibitively high.

>Anyone who wants to take you down will only need (1) a detector that can
>point out your boxes and (2) a small caliber rifle.

Errrrr. Hadn't thought of that. Placement will be a major factor, I
beleieve.

>Since the cost to find and destroy is much less than the cost to make and
>deploy, a covert network of this sort wouldn't last long.  An _overt_
>network, perhaps a commercial entity that networks an entire city, would
>be an interesting prospect.

Depends how you place them. If you put them _on top_ of things, you'd need 
a helicopter to shoot 'em.

>The techniques for maintaining location information on actual machines
>connected to the net, and for updating them as they move, are actually
>quite simple and well understood (cellular telephones are a simple,
>dumb version of the technology).  The trick is to find out a way that
>the network can know where you are but not give that information out
>(even to the owners of the network), without unacceptable overheads.

This is true.
But if we make the things in thick boxes (well, slightly bullet-proof,
anyway), and put them in places where theyare hard to shoot at, then we 
should be right. We would only need a few each suburb.

Dwayne.