🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1i2up9INNk5e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Danny Guy Frezza) writes:

   >     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!


well, yes, but...


i don't remember the reference, but i think that during ww2, several
bell lab's engineers showed that a person could be trained to
understand speech inversion scramblers without any hardware aids.  the
scramblers in question were ones which permuted multiple bands in a
changing manner, and didn't just invert the entire band.

if people's ears can crack the system in real time without special
hardware then simple speech inversion really shouldn't be called a
security device.