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 ;-)