1997-01-17 - Re: Newt’s phone calls

Header Data

From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: de86953cef005bdc00da3b78d0d9e8def985864d6932c5fd5c08ac815a345f71
Message ID: <5bok3l$gl4@joseph.cs.berkeley.edu>
Reply To: <>
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-17 19:35:32 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:35:32 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: daw@cs.berkeley.edu (David Wagner)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 11:35:32 -0800 (PST)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Newt's phone calls
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <5bok3l$gl4@joseph.cs.berkeley.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

In article <Pine.GSO.3.95.970113203329.21655A-100000@cp.pathfinder.com>,
Declan McCullagh  <declan@pathfinder.com> wrote:
> The only other journalist who was there made an interesting point, that
> encrypting cell phone traffic only up to the point it hits the phone
> system wouldn't hinder L.E. access but would protect privacy. (Or,
> perhaps, would be worse in the long term since we wouldn't have such
> luscious examples.) 

This is well-known.  GSM does this, for example.  I've seen the point
made in several textbooks.

I don't know of any cellular systems that do end-to-end encryption
(which would stop wiretapping at the landline switch) as opposed to
airlink encryption.  Does anyone else?