Newbee ..- encrypted calls/SMS

[Ian Stirling]

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.