Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RadioAstronomer; Physicist
However, if you broke it up into tiny packets with fill bits filling in the blanks and sent the fixed length packets across at a reasonable bit rate, it would mask the phonetics.

Exactly; the question is in normal VoIP, does the system send as many packets for five seconds of silence as it sends for five seconds of sound? If the answer is yes, then an encrypted version of the message should "mask" the cadence.

From the stand-point of the VoIP carrier, they don't know what you are sending; all they see is a stream of packets. I'm not sure how they would differentiate between encrypted voice and a chatter-box - if the data rates are the same, there's no difference to the network.

84 posted on 04/13/2006 7:48:46 AM PDT by longshadow (FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]


To: longshadow
Exactly; the question is in normal VoIP, does the system send as many packets for five seconds of silence as it sends for five seconds of sound?

There's no such thing as perfect silence at the mouthpiece, and I'm not even sure if the compression algorithm would be able to compress the "silence" more than the voice, especially if the background noise happened to be white noise. White noise is random, and randomness doesn't compress well, plus white noise is commonly piped into sensitive meeting rooms.

98 posted on 04/15/2006 8:32:20 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson