home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky uk.misc:3158 alt.conspiracy:14616
- Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!uknet!strath-cs!nntphost!jim
- From: jim@cs.strath.ac.uk (Jim Reid)
- Newsgroups: uk.misc,alt.conspiracy
- Subject: Re: Camilla-gate
- Message-ID: <JIM.93Jan25163902@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk>
- Date: 25 Jan 93 16:39:02 GMT
- References: <JIM.93Jan20163908@hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk>
- <1993Jan22.161524.20250@visionware.co.uk>
- <1993Jan25.103657.6071@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Sender: news@cs.strath.ac.uk
- Distribution: uk
- Organization: Computer Science Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
- Lines: 22
- Nntp-Posting-Host: hunter.cs.strath.ac.uk
- In-reply-to: rf@cl.cam.ac.uk's message of 25 Jan 93 10:36:57 GMT
-
- In article <1993Jan25.103657.6071@infodev.cam.ac.uk> rf@cl.cam.ac.uk (Robin Fairbairns) writes:
-
- Jim misses one important point of the NS article (which I only got
- round to over breakfast today) - the encryption appears to be
- bidrectional on any given link.
-
- But I don't read New Scientist and I didn't claim to have read it!!!
- You must have confused me with someone else.
-
- Thus, if both ends of a two-mobile
- conversation have encryption, the conversation never appears on the
- air-waves in clear.
-
- Even so, this in itself is probably not enough to secure the
- conversation from interception by GCHQ or NSA. It would be reasonable
- to assume that the resources of these organisations are capable of
- breaking ANY encryption system available for public use. [If not, what
- is the taxpayer's money being spent on?] Hopefully, they expend their
- energies on communications which are more important than Charles and
- Camilla's pillow talk, but how are we to know?
-
- Jim
-