1994-12-16 - Re: Digital privacy
Header Data
From: “Amanda Walker” <amanda@intercon.com>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: cc8b922f99187e13937414cc08d8f0249f7d978527a3cb8a9166c6f83604ad66
Message ID: <9412161623.AA23186@chaos.intercon.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-12-16 21:24:55 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 13:24:55 PST
Raw message
From: "Amanda Walker" <amanda@intercon.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 13:24:55 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Digital privacy
Message-ID: <9412161623.AA23186@chaos.intercon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
> >Pssst, what about privacy? Again, since your voice is digitally
> >processed, it's >less likely that anyone could eavesdrop on
> >your conversations.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ?Como? This is absolutely amazing!
Well, it is true, from a pragmatic point of view. A neighborhood kid with a
Radio Shack scanner can't listen in on digital cellular calls. You have to
actually hack a phone, which is a much less prevalent skill.
I still think that CDMA+DES is the way to go for secure cellular, but from a
purely pragmatic point of view simply going digital does increase privacy.
Using analog cellular is like using a walkie-talkie.
Amanda Walker
InterCon Systems Corporation
Thread
Return to December 1994
- Return to ““Amanda Walker” <amanda@intercon.com>”
- Return to ““Dave Emery” <die@pig.die.com>”
- Return to “Jonathan Cooper <entropy@IntNet.net>”
Return to “Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@src.umd.edu>”
- 1994-12-16 (Fri, 16 Dec 94 13:24:55 PST) - Re: Digital privacy - “Amanda Walker” <amanda@intercon.com>
- 1994-12-16 (Fri, 16 Dec 94 13:43:58 PST) - Dining Cryptographers test bed client for IRC - Thomas Grant Edwards <tedwards@src.umd.edu>
- 1994-12-17 (Fri, 16 Dec 94 20:59:18 PST) - Re: Digital privacy - “Dave Emery” <die@pig.die.com>
- 1994-12-18 (Sun, 18 Dec 94 07:08:10 PST) - Cellular Privacy [Digital vs. Analog] - Jonathan Cooper <entropy@IntNet.net>