The take on this that we won't hear is: "This is outrageous! Why don't cell-phones offer encryption to ensure our privacy?"
Cell-phone encryption is 'essential' for 'important' people. However, it is 'dangerous' in the hands of the 'citizens' (translate that to mean 'schmucks'). The government doesn't object to crack-dealers having cryptography capabilities, they just want to make sure that those crack-dealers work for the CIA (freelancers need not apply).
Toto
When I worked at Cylink we developed a product, called SecureCell which combined a standard analog cellphone (NEC I think) and a version of our SecurePhone. Despite the fact that it could thwart any but the most well funded eavesdropping we only sold a handfull. It was quite pricy (about $6,000) and required a small suitcase to tote, but even so only a few gov't agencies (mostly diplomatic) and execs thought it was worth the trouble. One problem facing such devices are the interruptions caused by cell-to-cell handoffs. These can occur even when stationary. SecureCell, I believe, used off-the-shelf line modems. I've read newer modem technologies (Spectrum and AT&T) have pretty much solved this problem. There's no reason Eric Blossom's phone encryptor can't be readily adapted to cellular to offer a secure and more reasonably priced cellular encryptor. PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Schear | Internet: azur@netcom.com Lamarr Labs | Voice: 1-702-658-2654 7075 West Gowan Road | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 Suite 2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet and Wireless Development 1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future! --Adolf Hitler