[6198] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: New Yorker article on NSA surveillance, crypto regs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Fri Dec 3 10:39:20 1999
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 18:08:46 -0500
Message-Id: <19991202230851.A27C041F16@SIGABA.research.att.com>
In message <19991202223214.CBVX2272@alaptop.hotwired.com>, Declan McCullagh wri
tes:
> While much of it resonates as true, the timing -- just before crucial
> oversight hearings and concerns about illegal NSA spying -- might be a
> little coincidental:
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32770,00.html
>
> Last week's CNN article and televised report raised near-identical concerns
> about newfound NSA eavesdropping ineffectiveness:
> http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/25/nsa.woes/
These two articles state that "The worldwide move to digital, rather than
analog, phones and other equipment is making eavesdropping more difficult.
So are fax machines". Can someone tell me why "digital" is harder for NSA?
Fax should be easier than voice, since there is in-band caller information.
(In the U.S., that information is legally required to be accurate. I wonder
if they've ever seen pages from "Cali Cartel, Inc.")
