3 ms·
That could be construed as a denial of service attack and would be illegal (or at least in a very murky legal grey area). Also you seem to have forgot that mos
by tjarratt 16y ago
That could be construed as a denial of service attack and would be illegal (or at least in a very murky legal grey area).
Also you seem to have forgot that most AT&T customers have bandwidth caps in place that would make it difficult for them to run this attack in the first place.
- __david__ 16y agoThe idea isn't to spew data at AT&T like a DoS, just taint all your boring communication to make them have to sift through more junk. For example, add extra "scary" keywords in your outgoing HTTP headers. X-Spook: Hamas subversive War on Terrorism Kosovo Delta Force
- tonfa 16y agoI am pretty sure it doesn't bother them. They don't actually go through the data, otherwise encryption would defeat the surveillance. There are many other more useful signals (and the fact that you use encryption is probably one). The goal is to find outliers, not people using scary words Furthermore it would be probably quite easy for them to filter that kind of "DoS", it is just too simplistic. If you come up with something more clever they probably are interested about knowing more about you anyway.