3 ms·

It would presumably be more secure to have the recipient receive them directly with a cell phone or satellite device. Printing them creates a literal paper trai

by dheera 1y ago

It would presumably be more secure to have the recipient receive them directly with a cell phone or satellite device. Printing them creates a literal paper trail and footsteps.

jdietrich 1y ago
In the context of peer or near-peer conflicts, Ukraine has shown us many reasons why a cellphone or satphone can get you killed. Anything with a radio transmitter is a giant beacon announcing your location if your enemy has a half-competent ELINT operation. Allowing personal devices with internet access to be used in the field is a gargantuan COMINT risk, because it's basically inevitable that some idiot is going to post a geotagged photo of something sensitive on social media. Mail delivered through specific authorised channels can be monitored and censored much more easily than real-time communications.
- koolba 1y ago
  Why do you even need two way communication? Just have an encrypted signal with per device decryption keys. Kind of like how satellite tv works but for messages. You won’t have proof of delivery or a way to reply, but that’s a feature, not a bug.
  - bigfatkitten 1y ago
    That also exists.
- int_19h 1y ago
  FWIW smartphones are nearly universally used in Ukraine by both sides because too much useful stuff runs on them. Artillery calculators, for example. Russians also use theirs for actual comms a fair bit because their equipment (like older tanks from storage) often lacks encrypted digital radios, or sometimes any working radios at all. Ukrainians invested heavily into DMR after the Donbas war in 2014-15 where they had similar troubles.
deepsun 1y ago
Besides mandatory censorship, I've heard in WW2 they just delayed all mail by 2 weeks intentionally. By that time all secret information is not relevant anyway.
- lldb 1y ago
  Another interesting thing about WW2 mail - they would photograph letters onto microfilm, then reprint them on the other end to save valuable shipping capacity.
  - mizzao 1y ago
    What did a printer look like in WW2?
    - aspenmayer 1y ago
      You didn’t really need a printer per se. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanhope_(optical_bijou) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanhope_(optical_bijou) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microform > Portable readers are plastic devices that fold for carrying; when open they project an image from microfiche on to a reflective screen. For example, with M. de Saint Rat, Atherton Seidell developed a simple, inexpensive ($2.00 in 1950), monocular microfilm viewing device, known as the "Seidell viewer", that was sold during the 1940s and 1950s. Apparently that’s not what they really used for mail in WW2, though. This video shows how it was really done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BpixrjNhGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BpixrjNhGE

by dheera 1y ago

It would presumably be more secure to have the recipient receive them directly with a cell phone or satellite device. Printing them creates a literal paper trail and footsteps.

jdietrich 1y ago

In the context of peer or near-peer conflicts, Ukraine has shown us many reasons why a cellphone or satphone can get you killed. Anything with a radio transmitter is a giant beacon announcing your location if your enemy has a half-competent ELINT operation. Allowing personal devices with internet access to be used in the field is a gargantuan COMINT risk, because it's basically inevitable that some idiot is going to post a geotagged photo of something sensitive on social media. Mail delivered through specific authorised channels can be monitored and censored much more easily than real-time communications.

koolba 1y ago
Why do you even need two way communication? Just have an encrypted signal with per device decryption keys. Kind of like how satellite tv works but for messages. You won’t have proof of delivery or a way to reply, but that’s a feature, not a bug.
- bigfatkitten 1y ago
  That also exists.
int_19h 1y ago
FWIW smartphones are nearly universally used in Ukraine by both sides because too much useful stuff runs on them. Artillery calculators, for example. Russians also use theirs for actual comms a fair bit because their equipment (like older tanks from storage) often lacks encrypted digital radios, or sometimes any working radios at all. Ukrainians invested heavily into DMR after the Donbas war in 2014-15 where they had similar troubles.

deepsun 1y ago

Besides mandatory censorship, I've heard in WW2 they just delayed all mail by 2 weeks intentionally. By that time all secret information is not relevant anyway.

lldb 1y ago
Another interesting thing about WW2 mail - they would photograph letters onto microfilm, then reprint them on the other end to save valuable shipping capacity.
- mizzao 1y ago
  What did a printer look like in WW2?
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    You didn’t really need a printer per se. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanhope_(optical_bijou) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanhope_(optical_bijou) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microform https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microform > Portable readers are plastic devices that fold for carrying; when open they project an image from microfiche on to a reflective screen. For example, with M. de Saint Rat, Atherton Seidell developed a simple, inexpensive ($2.00 in 1950), monocular microfilm viewing device, known as the "Seidell viewer", that was sold during the 1940s and 1950s. Apparently that’s not what they really used for mail in WW2, though. This video shows how it was really done. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BpixrjNhGE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BpixrjNhGE