1994-02-25 - Re: Infomercial

Header Data

From: “Perry E. Metzger” <pmetzger@lehman.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: f350828516899cfd00cbd7832b2abfa34b711a2f27b4fb4a96e3476e3925231c
Message ID: <9402250351.AA19657@andria.lehman.com>
Reply To: <9402250344.AA14935@bambi.ccs.fau.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-25 03:52:02 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 19:52:02 PST

Raw message

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 94 19:52:02 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Infomercial
In-Reply-To: <9402250344.AA14935@bambi.ccs.fau.edu>
Message-ID: <9402250351.AA19657@andria.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Tom Holroyd says:
> Most people couldn't care less.  They don't encrypt data, and will
> never use a clipperphone.  The FBI can *already* listen to all their
> phone calls and see all their medical records.	Why should people
> do anything to protect something they don't have anyway?

I agree that an infomercial is silly, but I disagree that secure
phones don't have an extensive market. If they were cheap enough,
people would want the feature just for the hell of it. Ultimately, it
won't add more than a couple of bucks to the cost of a phone -- and
the "ultimately" in this case is less than a decade away. I'd say that
most people would pick up a cryptophone if it only costs a couple
bucks more and is transparent to use.

Perry





Thread