1993-11-28 - Re: 900 Mhz phones

Header Data

From: ferguson@icm1.icp.net (Paul Ferguson x2044)
To: analyst@netcom.com (Benjamin McLemore)
Message Hash: 77df527e6d6e8d6ff85c3482176d1c6e1d53a9d2173c085e06c936020bb5a583
Message ID: <9311280542.AA22805@icm1.icp.net>
Reply To: <199311280524.VAA25839@mail.netcom.com>
UTC Datetime: 1993-11-28 05:44:19 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 21:44:19 PST

Raw message

From: ferguson@icm1.icp.net (Paul Ferguson x2044)
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 93 21:44:19 PST
To: analyst@netcom.com (Benjamin McLemore)
Subject: Re: 900 Mhz phones
In-Reply-To: <199311280524.VAA25839@mail.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <9311280542.AA22805@icm1.icp.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text




> Any more info from anyone about which of these phones might be more or
> less secure? What kind of algorithms would we really like to see 
> implemented for wireless communications? Who's doing it? (I think there 
> is a story about Qualcomm wanting stronger security for their CDMA digital
> cellular standard but being forced to weaken or eliminate it due to 
> government(?) pressure--but that may be my paranoia again...)

No, its not your imagination, nor a case of over-active paranoia.

It's a fact that the FBI (among other three letter entities) have
previously asked cellular encryption developers to "scale back" their
implementations for ease of access to communications for law enforcement
purposes. In a word (or two), it bites.

The Digital Telephony proposal espoused mnay desired options which the
gummint couldn't previously weasel in earlier attempts to backdoor
communications.

- Paul





Thread