'Sunday Times' article on GSM changes

[DrZaphod]

In Message Fri, 5 Feb 93 13:14:58 EST,
  phantom.com!thug at 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 at ncselxsi.uucp]
Technicolorized