Re: [Cryptography] Email and IM are ideal candidates for mix networks

[Wendy M. Grossman]

On 08/28/2013 02:48, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Of course, as a reporter, you are probably getting email addresses of
> people to talk to via referral, and that could be used to get past the
> barrier. The problem of people spontaneously contacting a published
> address is harder.

I do the latter a lot. I think all journalists do, except the very lazy
ones. :)

wg
-- 
www.pelicancrossing.net <-- all about me
Twitter: @wendyg
___
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

Re: [Cryptography] Email and IM are ideal candidates for mix networks

[Wendy M. Grossman]

On 08/27/2013 18:34, ianG wrote:
> Why do we need the 1980s assumption of being able to send freely to
> everyone, anyway?

It's clear you're not a journalist or working in any other profession
where you actually need to be able to communicate spontaneously with
strangers.

wg
-- 
www.pelicancrossing.net <-- all about me
Twitter: @wendyg
___
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

Re: [Cryptography] Traffic Analysis (was Re: PRISM PROOF Email)

[Wendy M. Grossman]

On 08/27/2013 01:17, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:39:16 -0400 The Doctor 
> wrote:
>> On 08/26/2013 09:26 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>>
>>> Mix networks are, however, a well technique. Onion networks, which
>>> are related, are widely deployed right now in the form of Tor, and
>>> work well. I see little reason to believe mix networks would not 
>>> also work well for instant messages and email (see my other
>>> thread, begun yesterday.)
>>
>> What is considered acceptible latency these days for IM or e-mail?
>> Supposedly, the highest acceptible latency for web browsing before
>> the user gets bored and closes the tab is two or three seconds
>> (supposedly...), so where would the lag for e-mail or IM fall
>> anymore before users give up on it?
> 
> I think tolerance for delays on the web is actually much lower than
> that -- even a full second probably drives many users away. That's
> why Tor has a much harder problem.
> 
> In Email, however, no one really knows their latency -- it is rare
> that someone actually is aware that a message has just been sent. I
> routinely have SMSes take seconds to go through and yet I use
> SMS.
> 

I'd agree with this. On the Web, people are impatient because they're
trying to complete a transaction in real time. It's very rare to expect
an immediate response by email. With IM it depends on the individual
conversation and the feedback you're getting. eg, if you're chatting
with someone in real time and the software shows you the other person is
typing a reply you'll wait, while if there's no feedback you may just
assume they've left the room for some reason. But either way, it's not
fatal.

Latency issues really apply much more to things that stream - audio,
video, voice calls. And high-speed trading, but that seems beyond the
scope of this conversation.

wg
-- 
www.pelicancrossing.net <-- all about me
Twitter: @wendyg
___
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography