Posted on 05/10/2009 5:43:05 PM PDT by A Navy Vet
With the ever encroaching Fedgov looking in and trying to control our personal lives, I'm looking for way that Americans can still communicate privately.
I understand that any answers given on this public forum, may alert the various gov agencies to a new work-around. I'm hoping someone can provide a fool proof answer even on this public board.
Internet e-mail and forums are easily compromised (ISP's easliy traceable); phone conversations, well, we all know about taps; Ham radio can be intercepted; CB radio the same. And no, face to face comms and devised codes are not the answer I'm looking for - too cumbersome and too slow. Same as snail-mail.
Although there are a few encrypted Internet programs out there such as PGP phone, that particular one is buggy depending on your computer setup (power, memory, firewalls, anti-virus, etc.).
Is anyone aware of any other encrypted Internet programs that the average person doesn't need an expensive doomsday program and a $10,000 server that will simply facilitate privacy? If not Internet, how can anyone possibly have a private conversation? What am I missing...???
So again, we are talking about an expensive encryption program on an expensive dedicate server? Do I have that right?
Unless you become a suspect for even some reason, no matter how innocent. Then the technology kicks in.
It can be done, but will tend to be a lot of work.
Doubtful you would be successful using computer programs, as “they” will always have more computer resources than you.
If the comms are that important, expect to devote a team just to send and receive them. This, then, opens up an entirely new line of weakness in your secured comms.
One old technique was using telephone books as keys, there are even better keys now, but along the same idea.
“So again, we are talking about an expensive encryption program on an expensive dedicate server? Do I have that right? “
No, use any public program. I think PGP costs about $30 and you don’t need a server.
I’m saying that the govt most likely have code put in every OS that allows them to access the computer. They have even talked about doing that recently.
The open source Linux is probably most secure but it would not be difficult to insert something in there. Or insert it into the hardware.
I’m saying if you want 100% security then stay away from a networked computer.
Okay, I'm spewing my Coke! Thanks for that!
Yes it is, all it takes is computer time.
Not quite true. If the key is truly random (not the pseudo-random you get from a digital computer) and is used only once (i.e. one-time pad) it cannot be broken. That doesn't mean the message can't be guessed, but the decoder can never be sure the message was decoded properly.
I've investigated the randomness of sequences of numbers taken from the phone book, and from sources such as the STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES, and they are sufficiently random to be used as one-time pads. For the phone book, use the last two digits of phone numbers, working down the page. From a source of statistical data such as the STAT ABSTRACT, ignore the final digit (it's been rounded, which may degrade randomness), and use the next-to-last and the next-to-next-to-last digits. Exclusive-or them with the text of the message to get the encrypted message. Recover the message by exclusive-oring the key with the encrypted message.
USE THE RANDOM KEY ONLY ONCE! (And yes, I mean to shout!)
You need to have some means of informing the recipient of such thing as page number, starting line, etc.
Remember that even if the message can't be decrypted by "them," the fact that you're sending an encrypted message is itself suspicious.
Therein lies the ultimate problem with phone calls, HAM&CB radio, and open Internet comms. Wasn't there a name for that particular DHS or FBI screening program? It escapes me at the moment. I wonder if it still exists? But then how would we know even if we were told it was shut down?
Is there anyone we can trust any longer? Man, I'm starting to sound like a conspiracy nut that I have fought against for years.
True, but computer time is a finite resource. Thus gubmint agencies who wish to snoop encrypted messages must pick and choose messages that are likely to be interesting.
Let's say that Mahmoud sends Ali an encrypted message that's 45,258 bytes long, and Bob sends Alice an encrypted message that's also 45,258 bytes long. Agent Smith wants to catch Mahmoud and Ali, but not waste his time on Bob and Alice. Without some prior knowledge of who sent which message to whom, Agent Smith risks seeing Mahmoud and Ali slip through his fingers because he used his computer time to decode Bob's grocery shopping list to Alice.
The lesson for the rest of us, assuming that Agent "O" is more interested in catching Americans than he is catching Mahmoud and Ali, is to encrypt everything. OK Agent "O", which message is the plans for the secret tea party meeting and which is Sarah Palin's Møøsë pie recipe?
I’ll look into that. Thank you. Hope it’s not incompatible with firewalls and anti-virus programs.
Of course, instead of taking the time to monitor your calls the men in black will.....I'd tell you, but we don't know who is watching, do we?
>> Remember that even if the message can’t be decrypted by “them,” the fact that you’re sending an encrypted message is itself suspicious.
Maybe we all need to send encrypted communications periodically, just to get “them” used to seeing it and drive them nuts.
For the same reason, I’m wondering how long before walking around in public in a “designer disguise” becomes chic — because of all the hidden cameras. Not so much here (yet), but I understand that Britain is positively awash in public cameras.
(Oh by the way:
jaic;
wpoei
uxhc-
lfuib
aer;b
0-pec
964gy !)
The computer you compose the message on can be listened to, unless you work inside a Faraday cage, or use a Tempest type system (hardened, so as not to release EMF).
The best communication is no communication. Think: leaderless single-cell resistance.
Echelon.
Sorry, my tin-foil hat doesn't allow me to transmit. Of course, if I got the smoke signals that an earlier poster suggested, I could always take the hat off and receive. Hmmm, let me think about the timing...
I don’t know if this helps but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos
You might have heard about it. It’s a sculpture at CIA Headquarters at Langley. It was created by a comic book writer. The crypto guys at the CIA have not yet cracked it fully and we’re talking almost 20 years.
Some people have devoted their entire lives to cracking this thing and have not done it. And from what I understand, the guy who created it uses old school stuff. Nothing fancy or modern about it.
I guess the point is, there is a way to encrypt things that cannot be easily cracked. If you could figure a way to apply this sort of method to instant comms you’d have what you’re looking for.
It’s something to think about.
As I suspected. But another question is how quickly can they do that? If I want to jump the wife of an FBI agent, how much time would I have to get the hell out?
Thank you. However, the problem with a devised code is the receiver(s) needs to know it, also. But that may be the ONLY way people may talk in privacy. Think Navajo (Wind Talkers) during WWII. The Japanese had NO frigging clue.
Huh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.