Path: utzoo!utgpu!ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca!CUVMA!SWL-L
Date:	Wed, 10 Jan 90 14:29:54 EST
Reply-To: Brian Daly <usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!hrc!godzilla!dalyb@BBN.COM>
Sender: Short Wave Listener's List <SWL-L%CUVMA.bitnet@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was
From:	Brian Daly <usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!mcdphx!hrc!godzilla!dalyb@BBN.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Privacy Issue
X-To:         swl-l@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To:	UofToronto LAN redistribution <SWL-L%UTORGPU.bitnet@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <90Jan10.214514est.58550@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Newsgroups: bitnet.swl-l
Distribution: ut
Approved: devnull@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu

In article <6030@alvin.mcnc.org>, spl@mcnc.org (Steve Lamont) writes:
> >I wonder why they think "sophisticated" cellular devices are immune from
> >being intercepted, other than the fact that it is against the law??
>
> Cellular phones frequency hop as the user moves from cell to cell.  This makes
> them more difficult to intercept -- at least over the long term.
>
Difficult -- maybe. Impossible -- NO. This is the point I was trying to make. My
question was ment to be satirical.

I agree with you --

The only way to ensure privacy is to include some form of encryption device on
the cordless or cellular phones.

Brian Daly WB7OML