Jay writes:
-+---------
|
|
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70619-0.html?tw=wn_index_1
|
The reason I find this list so fascinating is that practitioners
of the art are in the business of proving a negative. Impossible
in science, but relatively possible here so long as the tools of
discovery are at least as good as the tools of stealth.
With respect to the Wired article and the supposed whistleblower,
no such proof of the negative is or ever will be possible. How
could you prove that calls are not diverted to a listening post?
You can encrypt your calls, though in a world that nonchalantly
ignores encryption the act of encrypting your calls makes them
prima facie "interesting" to traffic analyzers. You can regularly
practice disinformation in ways that are irresistably actionable
to your interceptors. You can withdraw from electronics as has
Mr. Bin Laden. Perhaps others. But you cannot prove a negative.
Somewhere in all this there is lurking a substantial essay on
how the physical world is fueled by proofs of positive assertion
whereas the digital world runs on proofs of negatives.
--dan
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:19 CST