The Call Is Cheap. The Wiretap Is Extra

[John Denker]

1) Here's an article from the New York Times.
The headline just about says it all.  Reportedly
THEY want voice-over-internet users to pay for
the privilege of having their calls tapped.

 > The Call Is Cheap. The Wiretap Is Extra.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040823/ZNYT01/408230401/1001/BUSINESS

(I cite the version online at The Ledger because
folks can read it there without registering, unlike
the nytimes.com site.)

===============================================

2) A modest proposal:

I think we should set up the following system:

   a) Users certify to their ISP that they use end-to-end
strong crypto on all their voice-over-internet calls, using
tamper-resistant (or at least tamper-evident) hardware and
software.

   b) The ISP demands such certification from all users.

   c) The ISP declines to install wiretap equipment, and
passes the savings on to the users.

   ... Who could possibly object?


Note that traffic-analysis is still possible, but the
equipment to do that is much cheaper.

Also note that if THEY are going to bugger my endpoints
to defeat the crypto, they might as well do the job right
and change the signalling so that the call goes directly
to THEIR premises ... That way the ISP doesn't need to get
involved, i.e. the ISP has no tap-related costs.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at metzdowd.com