Path: utzoo!telecom-request Date: 14 Jun 91 18:07:35 GMT From: Paul Elliott x225 Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Wireless Phone Security Message-ID: Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 457, Message 8 of 12 Lines: 50 We have been discussing the issue of "wireless eavesdropping" on cordless and cellular phone conversations -- here is a product announcement that looks like it might provide an easy solution for the cordless phone problem: From _Electronic Engineering Times_ June 10, 1991, page 20: (heavily paraphrased) "One-Chip Voice Security" A Low-cost, single-chip secure voice system, which can be fitted into telephones, cellular handsets and other communications equipment, has been developed by Micro Code (Cambridge) Ltd. ..uses Sierra Semiconductor's CMOS technology... ..duplex voice-band encoder/decoder... ..integration of analog and digital, including configuration EEPROM... ..chip will be made by Sierra in Singapore, target price of $25... ..variable-carrier frequency inversion, more than 10exp9 code settings... ..single 5V supply... [end of excerpt] Here's another development I spotted in _Microtimes_ June 10 1991, page 22, "Realizable Fantasies" by Jim Warren (a monthly column): [talking about crypto-faxes, and then:] "Fujitsu may be the first offering a cordless consumer telephone that scrambles communications between the handset and the base-station (Azet-R10)." [end of excerpt] I wonder if the Fujitsu phone will use the Micro Code chip? All this is kinda disappointing, since a good friend of mine has been trying to develop an encrypted handset/base-station. I *told* him that it would just be a matter of time before the big boys (like Fujitsu) introduced a similar product, but hope springs eternal, and all that. Definitely products whose time has come. Maybe now we can get the legislature to stop the ridiculous "anti-scanner" type of regulations [author's editorial comment there]. I wonder if Congress will demand a "back door" into these schemes? Paul Elliott - DSC Optilink - {uunet, pyramid, tekbspa}!optilink!elliott