From: Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl <rrothenb@ic.sunysb.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 13:59:19 PST
To: ethridge@netcom.com (Allen B. Ethridge) (Allen B. Ethridge)
Subject: Re: The drumbeat against anonymity (Cellphone security?)
In-Reply-To: <ab5f548601021004d020@DialupEudora>
Message-ID: <199502102157.QAA20682@libws3.ic.sunysb.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


I remember watching some of the hearings onthe DT Bill on CSPAN and seeing
the cellular industry people note that the DT Bill would make it difficult
to implement encryption/authentication measures.

Rob

> >The phone companies that are complaining about fraud have inadequately
> >arranged for security and need to adopt a mode that fixes this. Since
> >physical money can't be fed into the slots of a handheld cell phone (or
> >at least can't then be delivered to the service owner!), the solution
> >has traditionally been an account-based payment system. (Accounts can
> >also be better protected against fraud by having PINs, etc.)
> >
> 
> The technology to reduce cellular fraud, through encryption and
> authentication, is easily implementable, but for some reason neither
> the operating companies nor the manufacturers want it.
> 
> In contrast, European cellular (GSM) products do implement
> encryption and authentication (at least as far as laws allow).
> GSM mobile phones can be equipped with a slot for a card that
> identifies the subscriber.  Billing is based on the subscriber's
> identity, not the phone's.
> 
> I'd say that the problem isn't just a lack of a proper payment
> model, but also an unwillingness to provide adequate technology
> to the problem.  Of course, the GSM approach does nothing for anonymity
> or digital cash.
> 
> allen@well.sf.ca.us          It's dangerous, child, to come to conclusions
> ethridge@netcom.com          when you don't have any facts.
> my opinions are my own       Dr. Hemlock, The Eiger Sanction
> 
> 
>