From: “Robert J. Woodhead” <trebor@foretune.co.jp>
To: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill_Stewart_HOY002_1305)
Message Hash: b97d7981b8275bdaf95d1c39abcce80ca40ada399ddb02ba8add3e39ec488119
Message ID: <9310140025.AA17210@dink.foretune.co.jp>
Reply To: <9310131541.AA22489@anchor.ho.att.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-10-14 00:26:45 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 17:26:45 PDT
From: "Robert J. Woodhead" <trebor@foretune.co.jp>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 93 17:26:45 PDT
To: wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill_Stewart_HOY002_1305)
Subject: Re: Spread Spectrum Nets (Way to do safely)
In-Reply-To: <9310131541.AA22489@anchor.ho.att.com>
Message-ID: <9310140025.AA17210@dink.foretune.co.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
You write:
>Robert Woodhead writes:
>> Succinctly, use the purloined letter technique -- hide it in plain sight.
>> There are RF bands set aside for unlicensed low-power operation; some
>> new phones use spread-spectrum techniques in these bands.
>It's more than just purloined-letter issues - it's *legal*.
You miss the point. The point is, rather than build an underground net,
build an overt one that has the features you want, that lots of people
would like to use.
The classic example of this technique, of course, is the Internet itself.
I'm sure there are people who would hold that it has resulted in the
dissemination of lots of "classified" cryptographic munitions. Yet
you don't see anyone trying to shut it down.
Why? Because it is useful and has a large user community of good folks
who would get royally p'od at anyone who tried.
Same thing with cellular phones. With TV. And on and on.
Return to October 1993
Return to “[wcs@anchor.ho.att.com (Bill_Stewart_HOY0021305)](/authors/wcs_at_anchor_ho_att_com_bill_stewart_hoy002_1305)”