🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec29.183101.4176@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> rwirthli@nyx.cs.du.edu (Ralph Wirthlin) writes:
>Although "secure" wireless phones may exist, it would be impossible
>for the general public to obtain one.  Strictly speaking, a "secure" device
>would allow discussion or dissemination of classified material
>over a non-secure link (i.e. phone lines, air waves) and thus
>would be unavailable to the public. 

Well, if by "secure" you mean "authorized for the protection of
classified information", you're right. The government only authorizes
NSA's (secret) algorithms for this purpose. But properly used, even
publicly available ciphers like RSA and DES could still provide a very
high degree of protection. Perhaps even against the NSA.

>It may not be right, but it certainly is legal as long as the contents
>of that conversation are not disclosed.  Cellular conversations are 
>"protected" from eavesdropping thanks to the fine folks on capitol hill.

It's worse than that. Cordless phones are not protected *at all*. This
has been upheld in two court cases (Rhode Island and Kansas, I think)
where a neighbor overheard a cordless phone user discuss drug dealing
or other illegal activities and reported it to the police. The police
then used the information against the suspect without a warrant. The
courts ruled that there was no "expectation of privacy" on a cordless
phone, so the evidence was admissible.

On the other hand, you're right that cellular conversations require a
warrant despite their using the exact same modulation method (FM) and
considerably more RF power than a cordless phone. It is theorized that
this state of affairs has something to do with there being a powerful
domestic cellular industry in the US, but no corresponding domestic
industry for cordless phones.

Phil