1994-02-09 - Re: Crypto Regulation Reform

Header Data

From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (cypherpunks)
Message Hash: 837b71eb4c1b7730b96b90ffb4a69f3a838f361ecc7abf83dc9aaa0c035a2efd
Message ID: <199402090010.QAA22469@mail.netcom.com>
Reply To: <199402071551.KAA04645@snark>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-09 00:10:53 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:10:53 PST

Raw message

From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 16:10:53 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (cypherpunks)
Subject: Re: Crypto Regulation Reform
In-Reply-To: <199402071551.KAA04645@snark>
Message-ID: <199402090010.QAA22469@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Perry E. Metzger sez:
> > Uhh, could you tell us?  Sounds like quite a breakthrough.  Credit
> > card sized?  Much cheaper than a modem, like $50 maybe?  And it
> > digititizes and securely encrypts speech (full duplex?) on the fly?
> By definition anything that does this in the digital domain needs a
> modem, so it can't be cheaper than a modem. None of the analogue
> methods are going to be terribly secure.

Remember that a "modem" such as we are used to is a much more complex
device (at least the firmware, and you do pay for that :-) than what is
required for simply modulating and demodulating a fixed rate, framed
bit stream.

Today's modem chip sets invariably have a general purpose microprocessor
to do all the Hayes type stuff and a DSP to do the actual bit stream
modulation/demodulation (and digital filtering and echo cancelation,
etc.) where my device can be the DSP alone and requires no RS232 ports
or the like.  This will result in a saving.  In short, what is
required for a voice-only device such as I am initially thinking about
is a subset of what is required for a computer modem.



Bob Cain    rcain@netcom.com   408-354-8021

           "I used to be different.  But now I'm the same."

--------------PGP 1.0 or 2.0 public key available on request.------------------