Newbee ..- encrypted calls/SMS
Ian Stirling
OpenMoko at mauve.plus.com
Fri Apr 25 15:23:51 CEST 2008
Crane, Matthew wrote:
> Yes, I understand that, that is why I'm thinking of this approach. My
> idea was to use analog voice transforms and their inverse with
> properties that would preserve most of the codec performance. But it
> would be awfully difficult to sync up the inverse on the other end
> without a data connection, I expect that with voice calls that delay can
> be added and removed without warning.
>
There are no simple voice transforms at all that will get through the
codec, and actually encrypt.
Voice changing is possible, but encryption is not.
You _cannot_ - for example - exepect frequency inversion - to get
through the codec chain.
More information about the community
mailing list