🚀 go-pugleaf

>     Yes, technically, it is a felony for you to use a speech-
>inversion descrambler to monitor these Motorola 'Secure Clear'
>cordless. Or for that matter, the new Radio Shack DUoPHONE ET-499,
>cordless phone which also depends on speech-inversion for privacy
>protection.  The public utility of the ECPA has been argued about

     Excellent point here.  The very simple point is that having some
basic scrambling of the signal is better than not at all!  The person
person having a scanner wwhose intentions is to eavdrop could face possible
consequences according to the law.  This reason alone makes having some
simple, basic private feature of scrambling well worth the few extra
bucks!  However, the question of how good the security one gets, surely
is not the best unless one wants to pay big bucks.
	I bought a Motorola Model 100, the first model of the series, that
offers the privacy feature spoken above.  I am very pleased with the phone,
since it is half the size of my older AT&T 5300, but has 10 channels to
scan instead of the three.  But also, it does have a 3 volume level control
for amplication of received signals which is a big plus for me, since I am
hard of hearing and wear hearing aids --- also, it is hearing-aid compatible,
which some cordless phones are not.
>     Despite the ECPA, it is unconscionable to me that Motorola --
>who surely knows better-- would produce the slick brochure &
>specifically market the 'Secure Clear' line as being invulnerable
>to eavesdropping.   Their wording unequivocally gives the
>impression that the 'Secure Clear' conversations are secure, not
>only from other cordless phone & baby monitors, which have several
>common frequencies, but also against communications hobbyists with
>scanner radios.
> 
	Another good point.  However, I had asked AT&T if they plan to
come out this year with a cordless phone having some kind of privacy feature,
they said no.  I don't think Motorola was trying to fool me; I knew what
this was and was very basic scrambling of the signal.  But again, having it,
for at least the reason listed above, makes it worth it.

>manuals.  The Tropez 900 actually seems to generate a very weak 
>analog harmonic in the 440MHz spectrum, but you'll still be a
>lot better off than poor old Lee Trevino.
>
>
	What specfic information does the Tropez 900 have? How does it
compare in price to the Motorola or Radio Shack Model?  Are we talking about
$150-$200 for a basic model or $400-600?

>
>-- 
> Tim Tyler      Internet: tim@ais.org  MCI Mail: 442-5735 
>P.O. Box 443    C$erve: 72571,1005  DDN: Tyler@Dockmaster.ncsc.mil
>Ypsilanti MI    Packet: KA8VIR @KA8UNZ.#SEMI.MI.USA.NA
>48197
>

-- 

Dan Frezza
Internet: bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu