1993-02-05 - RE: ‘Sunday Times’ article on GSM changes

Header Data

From: Eric Fogleman <Eric.Fogleman@analog.com>
To: thug@phantom.com
Message Hash: 7ab468b53e140757d2528510e5cefdb2415a090435f86d0e3bcf217b48831b78
Message ID: <9302051849.AA18299@ack.adstest.analog.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1993-02-05 18:52:13 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 5 Feb 93 10:52:13 PST

Raw message

From: Eric Fogleman <Eric.Fogleman@analog.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 93 10:52:13 PST
To: thug@phantom.com
Subject: RE: 'Sunday Times' article on GSM changes
Message-ID: <9302051849.AA18299@ack.adstest.analog.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


(Thug writes)

> According to what I read it seems that the whole issue of cellular radio
> signal encryption is really a non-issue.  They could have the most secure
...
> What makes you think they don't have the same kind of REMOB/BLV capability
> to the cellular telephone switches?  I mean, if a conversation is scrambled
...

If getting around GSM encryption is no problem, then why are governments
pushing the issue?

Eric Fogleman






Thread