Re: Untraceable email?

From: Arthur Hagen (art_at_broomstick.com)
Date: 05/22/05

  • Next message: Peter J. Cherny: "Re: Netgear FR114P" 
    Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 02:20:41 -0400

    Walter Roberson <roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote:
    > In article <wtMje.8069$tX5.813@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
    > degrub <degrub@nospamflash.net> wrote:
    >> If you really need "untraceable" then print out your email/letter on
    >> any printer and mail it from the downtown post office.
    >
    > That's not particularily untraceable
    > -- different printers have different chemical compositions of their
    > inks
    > -- fingerprints on the paper
    > -- fingerprints on the envelope
    > -- DNA from the siliva from when the stamp was licked or the
    > envelope was sealed
    > -- store/post-office security cameras

    Allow a little pedantry here... You can't trace anyone from fingerprints or
    DNA on a piece of evidence. You can use the fingerprint/DNA to obtain a
    positive identification with someone on a list of suspects, but it's not
    backwards traceable as such (well, with mithocondrial DNA you could possibly
    trace a person back to one particular ancestor, but I doubt that would help
    too much).

    > As a simple example: even if I was careful to run my messages through
    > a spell checker, it would be clear to any practiced analyst that I am
    > Canadian, if if only by examining my pattern of choice of 's' versus
    > 'z'.

    You're sure about that, eh? :-)

    Most people have idiolects that can betray them, but knowing that can help
    you avoid it. Since I know I tend to write fairly long sentences and use
    certain words and phrases more than what's common, I can try to avoid doing
    that. It won't be foolproof, but enough to not immediately point the finger
    at myself.

    Regards, 

    -- 
*Art
  • Next message: Peter J. Cherny: "Re: Netgear FR114P"