[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: The drumbeat against anonymity (Cellphone security?)

I remember watching some of the hearings onthe DT Bill on CSPAN and seeing
the cellular industry people note that the DT Bill would make it difficult
to implement encryption/authentication measures.


> >The phone companies that are complaining about fraud have inadequately
> >arranged for security and need to adopt a mode that fixes this. Since
> >physical money can't be fed into the slots of a handheld cell phone (or
> >at least can't then be delivered to the service owner!), the solution
> >has traditionally been an account-based payment system. (Accounts can
> >also be better protected against fraud by having PINs, etc.)
> >
> The technology to reduce cellular fraud, through encryption and
> authentication, is easily implementable, but for some reason neither
> the operating companies nor the manufacturers want it.
> In contrast, European cellular (GSM) products do implement
> encryption and authentication (at least as far as laws allow).
> GSM mobile phones can be equipped with a slot for a card that
> identifies the subscriber.  Billing is based on the subscriber's
> identity, not the phone's.
> I'd say that the problem isn't just a lack of a proper payment
> model, but also an unwillingness to provide adequate technology
> to the problem.  Of course, the GSM approach does nothing for anonymity
> or digital cash.
> [email protected]          It's dangerous, child, to come to conclusions
> [email protected]          when you don't have any facts.
> my opinions are my own       Dr. Hemlock, The Eiger Sanction