Re: FV's Borenstein discovers keystroke capture programs! (

In <kl3Wc7OMc50eRIr810@nsb.fv.com> "Nathaniel Borenstein" wrote:

> We have a few pages of C code that scan everything you type on a
> keyboard, and selects only the credit card numbers.  How easy is that to
> do with credit card numbers spoken over a telephone?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In: <sl3SprmMc50eAWY4U=@nsb.fv.com> "Nathaniel Borenstein" wrote:

>I used to trust the telephone not to be tapped in a selective way based on
>keyword recognition, but in recent years, with the improvement in voice
>recognition technology, I have stopped trusting it that way, and I know
>plenty of other people have too -- if you say "NSA" into a cellular call,
>you are probably inviting an eavesdropper.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Can you make up your mind, please? Do you regard automated 
voice recognition as a threat to your privacy, or not? Is there
some reason you think it's lot easier to recognize a spoken "NSA"
than "Three One Four One Five Nine Two Six Five Four"?

Consistancy is a wonderful thing - you should try it sometime.


		speaking strictly for myself

			Peter Trei
			ptrei@acm.org

PS: I've kept a log of this whole silly thread. It will not be forgotten.

>  
> Can you make up your mind, please? Do you regard automated 
> voice recognition as a threat to your privacy, or not? Is there
> some reason you think it's lot easier to recognize a spoken "NSA"
> than "Three One Four One Five Nine Two Six Five Four"?
> 

Let's give it a try ...  (this is with a copy of DragonDictate 
Professional running on a Pentuim 90 with an IBM DSP card  
handling some of the work.  Not exactly cheap, but well within 
budget  for our purposes.)

3141592654. NSA.  That wasn't too bad now, was it?  Of course, the NSA
wasn't in the default vocabulary, but then again, neither was the NSO.  Is
this government censorship?

Now then, does anybody have a nice high quality radio bug we can stick 
on Nat's telephone?  Maybe we'll be able to  spoof their PR Agency, 
leaving them helpless :-)


Disclaimer: I have a huge amount of respect for all the individuals at 
first virtual; they're all greats from the field of Internet mail.  
However I think this biases them towards a mail based solution, even when 
this isn't the best way to tackle the job.  I'm disappointed that they 
have to stoop to this level in a desperate attempt to hold what seems to 
be an untenable market position, when there is so much important work 
they could all the doing.


Simon

> Consistancy is a wonderful thing - you should try it sometime.

  Consistency is also pretty good :-)

(at least with voice recognition, the typos are spectacularly   catfish   
wombat haddock).