Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!ptsfa!pacbell!att-ih!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!commgrp
From: commgrp@silver.bacs.indiana.edu (BACS Data Communications Group)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: Spread Spectrum
Message-ID: <1083@silver.bacs.indiana.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 88 21:22:55 GMT
Sender: commgrp@silver.bacs.indiana.edu
Lines: 28

>>> re discussion of the eventual flood of stealth (i.e. spread spectrum)
>>> signals that the FCC will be unable to understand, let alone detect!

>>...the same technology that is making spread spectrum a fact of life 
>>is also make spectrum monitors more sophisticated.  So, although
>>I can't understand what you're saying, I can tell that you're sending
>>something. ...

>Only an informed receiver can sync and correlate the signal...
>if the signal... looks like noise, tastes like noise and feels like 
>noise (to an uninformed receiver) then it must be noise. You can 
>claim you have detected it, but I think not.
>
>John Logajan            umn-cs!hyper!ns!logajan


Yeah, right!  We're also supposed to believe that NSA can't read DES-
encrypted data. The government will likely spare no expense to be able 
to detect/monitor spread-spectrum communications, and is likely to be 
especially interested in any that it does detect.  NSA is said to be 5 
years ahead of the published state of the art.  There are 
instantaneous methods of spectrum-analysis and direction finding, 
which could be coupled to dedicated parallel processors...

--

Frank
reid@gold.bacs.indiana.edu