[7829] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: Oh for a decently encrypted mobile phone...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Allen Simpson)
Sat Sep 16 13:48:28 2000
Message-ID: <39C359C5.8B508379@greendragon.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 07:30:42 -0400
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Greg Rose <ggr@qualcomm.com>
Cc: cryptography@c2.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I was somewhat amused to note that Qualcomm's offering has another
link for "civilian" versions. So, what's the difference?
A major point of the thread is that these are civilian mobile phones.
Another issue is that the Qualcomm phones don't encrypt on analog.
Starium seemed like a good idea, until they decided that the "standard"
would be licensed by a consortium. We need an open protocol.
I've advocated for a half dozen years now that we approach some mass
commercial vendor of wireless phones (say vtech or conair) and ask
to add security code. These phones are all digital spread spectrum,
yet connect to normal analog lines. No reasons why the security
couldn't be end-to-end.
We also need some open standards....
Greg Rose wrote:
> Stariums (a) should appear RSN (I have one) but (b) are not mobile.
>
> There's the Qsec-800 CDMA mobile from Qualcomm, but that won't work in
> England I don't think. See http://www.qualcomm.com/govsys/qsec.html .
>
> Disclaimer: I work for one and invest in both, so I'm biased.
> Greg.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.5.1
iQCVAwUBOcNZnNm/qMj6R+sxAQFXYgQAqAlYP8QDjRjWnoLvabaY2h8qVZXQRHp8
9ODqQi37oOp+p5J23rLczIEAQwTYacr4FskZbyix1kkhv3L24GQVWnllLqePfbxZ
v+DXDmXHc1giaAfZ4HcUp6JwlFAPS/WLe1DYC6vxS2i2xbLSjAE5+rgzrNBHAaov
gGnzsbXUhQ8=
=HyGs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
