🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1i2up9INNk5e@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bz223@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Danny Guy Frezza) writes:
>     Excellent point here.  The very simple point is that having some
>basic scrambling of the signal is better than not at all!


This is not necessarily true.

Simple inversion helps me against my neighbor with a cordless phone (unless
it's another Motorola).  It doesn't help me against anyone wanting to
eavesdrop for real.

As long as I know how good (bad) it is, it helps, I suppose.

If I ever let myself believe it's really secure, I'll be seduced into
behaving with it as if I had privacy -- and would therefore reveal more
than I should.

In that case, "some basic scrambling" is far worse than having no
scrambling at all.

The best case would be the old ham radio sets with speakers and microphones
-- no headphones, no phone handsets -- with the large antenna outside the
window -- reminding you constantly that your words are being broadcast.

-- 
-- <<Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are my own, of course.>>
-- Carl Ellison						cme@sw.stratus.com
-- Stratus Computer Inc.	M3-2-BKW		TEL: (508)460-2783
-- 55 Fairbanks Boulevard ; Marlborough MA 01752-1298	FAX: (508)624-7488