Hi,
Chris has proposed that
> While it's now discontinued in its original form, Speaking-Freely over its
> encrypted channel is _infinitely_ more secure than a standard POTS.
Yes/No.
standard POTS has a zero security rating - anyone can listen in.
Since you have some security with the voip system (such as
speaking-freely), it is a case of
some
----
0
a number divided by zero is undefined, which could be either positive
infinity or negative infinity. Thus, Chris is correct, _infinitely_ more
secure. (Please ignore those who will tell you that x/0 = x)
==============================
Now, how secure is speaking-freely? In fact, it is not that secure.
Sure, it is encrypted etc, but the PC itself is not secure. Not secure.
The police (or other interested parties) enter your house, disk image.
They go away, and find the secret key etc. Or they find the password
written down on a bit of paper on top of the keyboard. Yes yes, this is a
bit of an effort, but it is much much easier than using a cray computer
for 120 years.
Alternatively, they cannot be bothered getting a disk image. They ring
up speaking-freely, and "execute a search warrant". In other words, they
get your password, and learn how to decrypt speaking-freely coms.
=============================================================
OK,
so how do we get security?
set up an ipsec tunnel between the two endpoints, and give up on going
via a ITP (internet telephony provider) such as speak-freely.
And encrypt the hard disk to protect the private key.
Derek.
================================================================
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Christopher Sawtell wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:41, Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
> > A regular phone line is a *lot* more private than the internet.
> That may well be the case in certain European countries which have had the
> experience of a central government going off the rails.
> However, here in NZ it all depends on how you define privacy.
> Your regular POTS line is _not_ at all private from the Police.
> They have an anytime dial-in back-door to any phone they want.
> Whether, or not, that is a desirable state of affairs is open to debate.
> imho, it is not. We should learn from history.
>
> > It also
> > falls under solid privacy legislation and your telco can't sell the
> > information collected from your phone calls.
> No, but they can and have made the connection between my number and my
> address
> available to the taxi company. I'm sure they didn't do it for free.
>
> > This is not the case where
> > you make your calls via a blackbox piece of software and one other
> > indvidual.
> While it's now discontinued in its original form, Speaking-Freely over its
> encrypted channel is _infinitely_ more secure than a standard POTS.
> Traffic analysis is possible, but content interception is _very_ difficult
> indeed, so much so that I'd say practically impossible unless you have the
> resources of the NSA & CIA combined.
>
>
--
Derek Smithies Ph.D. This PC runs pine on linux for
email
IndraNet Technologies Ltd. If you find a virus apparently
from me, it has
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] forged the e-mail headers on
someone else's machine
ph +64 3 365 6485 Please do not notify me when
(apparently) receiving a
Web: http://www.indranet-technologies.com/ windows virus from me......
