1994-02-09 - Re: Crypto Regulation Reform

Header Data

From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (cypherpunks)
Message Hash: dd99763cdcc272df826c1481b84d201714f921fcd71d07b6a2f7c31d45653f5a
Message ID: <199402090119.RAA02591@mail.netcom.com>
Reply To: <199402090042.TAA09799@snark>
UTC Datetime: 1994-02-09 01:22:11 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:22:11 PST

Raw message

From: rcain@netcom.com (Robert Cain)
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 94 17:22:11 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com (cypherpunks)
Subject: Re: Crypto Regulation Reform
In-Reply-To: <199402090042.TAA09799@snark>
Message-ID: <199402090119.RAA02591@mail.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Perry E. Metzger sez:
> Robert Cain says:
> > 
> > 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.
> > Perry E. Metzger sez:
> This is embarassingly wrong, Robert.

Please embarass me.  Do you always approch things with the hostility
I am sensing, Perry?  I've heard this about you but this is the first
time I've run into it myself.  :-)

> Have you actually looked at one of the Rockwell chipsets in real use,
> Robert? They have "all in one" solutions these days. Getting cheaper
> than what they sell is almost impossible -- you cannot achieve savings
> by "leaving things out" because there is nothing available to leave
> out. With the cost of a codec to do something like QCELP and the chip
> to do the encryption, you are going to be at least as expensive as a
> normal modem anyway just for the parts to manage that component of the
> work.

Yes, every chip set and DSP on the market in excruciating detail.  It
was only recently that I realized that I could use a simpler, cheaper
solution.  I'm an EE as well as programmer and I've actually got bills
of materials and schematics for this.  I'm not guessing.

> I'd be very suprised to see your price predictions come true. I'd be
> less suprised to see a secure voice product becaue the mechanisms to
> build such things are well understood and hardly revolutionary.

And I'll be very happy to surprise you when the political dust has
settled, when I am satisfied that a patent filing isn't going to be
stamped so that even I can't look at it or talk about it legally and
when I find the bucks to patent it and build one.

I keep saying I won't argue and then I do.  :-)  Time for me to put up
or shut up.  I've tested these waters to my satisfaction and from the
feedback here believe that my solution is still non-obvious (until you
see it :-)  So, I'll be back to discuss this further when I can freely.



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.------------------