Starium?

[David Honig]

At 12:05 PM 4/16/01 -0700, Tim May wrote:
>>Thanks for the tip on that.  I'll be looking out for it, although at
>>that price, it's cheaper to buy a dedicated PC and run SpeakFreely, as
>>you point out.
>
>There seem to be good market reasons for dedicated set up, especially 
>one that ordinary phones attach to easily. The "bump in the cord" 
>model.
>
>For one, security. Which is more likely to have been compromised: a 
>small sealed box implementing D-H forward secrecy or a PC which may 
>have been tampered with by intruders, maids hired by the Feds, 
>whatever/

Ask that headless arab about the impermeability of handset-style
devices.   "MossadBell --reach out and touch someone"

If you want, epoxy the case closed.  Voila, instant embedded system.

[You can build the same amount of trust using a COTS pocket pc
as you can with a slicker dedicated gizmo.  Its easier to prototype
starting with COTS if you don't have an industrial design lab
at your disposal.]




>Second, ease of use. Many of the intended users of the secure phones 
>may not even be heavy users of computers, or may have various 
>machines not supported by SpeakFreely or other programs.

Yep, ease of use is a real problem.

>Third, integration of the Starium-type chipset in cellphones remains 
>the Big Win, right? 

Getting anything into a cell handset is the Big Win, yep.


What Pablo Escobar wants is a secure cellphone he 
>can use on the run, in his villas, not some SpeakFreely program 
>possibly bugged by the CIA or DEA.

Heh, he wants a *disposable* secure cellphone sold from vending machines
on the street.  So do the chip makers ;-)