Talk:Traffic analysis

message: I deleted this:
:"There was a famous exchange on December 2, 1941, five days before the Pearl Harbor attack, between Admiral Husband Kimmel, Pacific Fleet Commander, and his Intelligence Officer, Captain Edwin Layton. Kimmel remarked on the absence of information about Japanese aircraft carriers, and Layton explained that he didn't know where most of them were. Kimmel then asked whether they might be rounding  Diamond Head (a volcano on Oahu). Layton replied that he didn't think so. Pearl Harbor was hit five days later."
It implies a causal relationship that doesn't exist, & I don't see a connection to traffic analysis. Neither am I convinced the radio operators left behind actually decieved Hypo. Trekphiler 11:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rounding [[Diamond Head, Hawaii | Diamond Head]]

message: I added this:
:"There is a close relationship between traffic anaylsis and cryptanalysis (commonly called codebreaking). Callsigns and addresses are frequently encrypted, requiring assistance in identifying them. Traffic volume can often be a sign of an addressee's importance, giving hints to pending objectives or movements to cryptanalysts."
It's been said (Willmott, Barrier & the Javelin, I think) t/a aided Rochefort & Layton in identifying the Coral Sea as an objective. Trekphiler 12:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mav, this is Hollywood

message: I was directed from the Tor article to this one by clicking on 'correlation attacks'. However, in this article nothing is mentioned about the latter. Just my 2c --Cruzlee 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correlation Attacks

message: It is difficult to completely eliminate traffic analysis: "It is extremely hard to hide information such as the size or the timing of the messages. The known solutions require Alice to send a continuous stream of messages at the maximum bandwidth she will ever use...This might be acceptable for military applications, but it is not acceptable for most civilian applications." (Ferguson and Schneier, 2003).
Hey, someone put a [clarify] marker on the above quote on the article page. I don't think it needs clarification though, not in the article but on this talk page perhaps... Or perhaps the quote should link to a military vs. civilian approach of designing products.
You can't sell a product for civilian use that spends as much energy, is quite as heavy, armoured, and expensive as the military version. First, civilian applications have to be cheap and lightweight. You cannot burn through bandwidth for the sake of reducing traffic analysis in civilian use.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.144.136.10 (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bandwidth may be flat rate for some user applications, especially in enterprises. In fact, it's sometimes useful to inject dummy traffic to keep a constant load, not against traffic analysis but to make the user experience, as a function of load, predictable. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarify on quote.... 

message: "Radio operators normally ..."
--Steve (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unfinished sentence

message: I removed the following material
:===Recent===
:*Traffic analysis and planespotting techniques were used to infer the existence of secret CIA flights , prisons  and the transfer of prisoners to and from these prisons, the so-called Torture Taxis.
The Village Voice link is dead (explained as expiration of an article license). Whatever one thinks of extreme rendition, this material has little explanation of how traffic analysis was used, or what, if anything, planespotting has to do with traffic analysis.
Traffic analysis, in this context, is a subset of SIGINT. For material to be relevant, it has to have some clear connection to the analysis of communications.
Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Torture taxis" 

message: It appears to me that what the article discusses is rather "traffic flow analysis" than "traffic analysis". Even though these two terms often seem to be used interchangeably, it occurs to me that "traffic analysis" is rather a superset of "traffic flow analysis", including cryptanalysis of data transmitted. Can somebody shed light on this issue?
Thanks, 85.124.63.18 (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic Analysis vs. Traffic Flow Analysis