At 6:33 PM +0000 4/16/01, Dr. Evil wrote:
>Peter,
>
>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/
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.
Third, integration of the Starium-type chipset in cellphones remains
the Big Win, right? 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.
>
>
>It's just a shame that we have encryption all over the place, except
>for the one medium which we probably use the most: voice.
It's been out there for years. Nautilus, SpeakFreely, etc. Just not
much interest, hence not much development.
A Cypherpunks physical meeting was done with DES-encrypted audio
links between Mountain View, Cambridge (MA), and Northern Virgina.
This was in 1993. Impressive as hell.
--Tim May
--
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED] Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns