(Eric Fogleman writes)
(Thug writes)
According to what I read it seems that the whole issue of cellular radio signal encryption is really a non-issue. They could have the most secure ... What makes you think they don't have the same kind of REMOB/BLV capability to the cellular telephone switches? I mean, if a conversation is scrambled ...
If getting around GSM encryption is no problem, then why are governments pushing the issue?
Eric Fogleman
The first reason is that they want to steer people's attentions away from the real issues. Thus if they are defeated on this one, they can say "Oh well, we'll be nice guys and you chaps this one.. but from now on leave us alone and let us go about our business of protecting you from yourselves." Basically, they want to fight us every step of the way, to make sure we don't get close enough to really start eating into their security.. The second reason of course is that they want to play super g-men, and ride around in vans full of cellular equipment following their suspects around the city. It's just too damn boring for them to dail up a REMOB at the cellular switch and listen in that way in the confort of their own offices. They need outdoor recreation, they need to feel like they're all James Bond or something. That's what the second reason is. Practically speaking though, cellular encryption does hamper their ability to listen in. Because sometimes they don't have access to the REMOB at a cellular switch, like when they are listening in without a warrant. If they access the REMOB, that would be noted in a log somewhere and then they could have problems if the suspect finds out they were wiretapping without a warrant. If they just pick it off the air, they don't need a warrant. If they do a wiretap the old way, they do. Hence, secure cellular encryption would actually prevent unauthorized wiretapping, which is something they never seem to mention to the people they are empowered to protect. Thug