> [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Nothing. I think that's correct. The only problem is broadcasting the > > keys is not simple. The latest systems change keys frequently-- as > > often as every 20 or 30 seconds I seem to remember. If you change the > > channel, you need a new key. It's not like the old days when the key > > changed daily or monthly. > > I don't know anything about anything,. but it seems to me that > 1) unless you want to have a period of static/blackness every > time you change channels, the system must be storing the > keys to all channels, even if each channel is encrypted with > a separate key. Similarly, the system would have to broadcast > what new keys will be in advance of the actual key changes. > > I'm just raving like a lunatic here, but it seems to me that if you > buffer the encrypted incoming signals, you don't have to get the > keys in anything like realtime in order to watch the programming. > I've been looking into switching to DirecTV, since my local cable monopoly (ATT Broadband) has such lousy service (their response to the sat-tv threat is not to improve their service, but to broadcast FUD about satellite's expense, contracts, etc).
It's my understanding that in fact, you do get a short period of blackness when you change channels - you can't surf with any thing like the ease you can on non-sat systems. > > > If you have such a service broadcasting the keys, it's not too hard > > to track you down. So I think it's not a practical solution. > > > > I'm pretty confident that it's possible in principle to > broadcast anonymously using a dc > (dining cryptographer) network. Maybe there's an easier way. > > George > So the DA rounds up the whole net on a conspiracy charge.... > > -Peter > > Peter Trei
