RE: 'Sunday Times' article on GSM changes

In Message Fri, 5 Feb 93 13:14:58 EST, phantom.com!thug@netcomsv.netcom.com (Murdering 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 standard for radio signal encryption and it wouldn't matter. The FBI already uses tie lines and REMOBs (remote observation units) at the telephone switching centers to access the conversation on any particular local loop (phone number) that they want.
The reason cells are encrypting is to protect against "unauthorized persons" [i.e civilians who havn't joined the fedz and DON'T live off other people's money [ours]]. I think this is another case that shows: letting other people encrypt your data for your protection never works out to be much good. I agree with Thug in that we need to employ our OWN encryption from one end to the other. That CRYPTOCUP soundz pretty good right about now. TTFN! DrZaphod [AC/DC] / [DnA][HP] [drzaphod@ncselxsi.uucp] Technicolorized
participants (1)
-
DrZaphod