You seem to be asking for telephone calls and SMS messages to be end-to-end encrypted. The underlying technologies were not designed with encryption in mind, so the only way for it to work would be for all the participants in a conversation to use an additional software layer. That was the method used by TextSecure.

The authors of TextSecure eventually figured out that a purpose-built Internet-based messaging protocol would be a better transport layer for secure messaging. If you're interested enough in secure messaging to be asking this question, you may be familiar with TextSecure's successor.

As for why a carrier wouldn't do this, I'll ask the inverse: why would they put in the effort when anyone who cares about secure communication just uses an encrypted messaging app?

Mainly Because there is no money in doing it.. people who are privacy can just do it themselves and use VPN, most every chat app these days is already e2ee, and data collection is mostly dependent on what apps you use/have installed rather than whos networks your data travels through.

Calls are infeasible because you need to get a it of different parties on board, such as:

• land lines - probably the biggest hurdle
• international calls
• old mobile phones
• everything in between

This requires a lot of coordinated work by a lot of people, and all the while the government will want backdoors for wiretaps and whatnot. It's just not going to happen. The technical problems aren't the great (if the signal is unencrypted, encrypt it; boom, legacy network support), so it's more that coordination that's an issue.

The next best option is a VoIP service that works with traditional phone numbers and encrypts everything between your device and the service. This wouldn't solve the broader problem, but encryption could be used by the service if the other end supports it. However, you'd need to only use VoIP on your phone, and the apps largely suck and there are technical issues like missing calls.

Text messages are being solved though with RCS now that Apple is on board and Google is marketing it, but unfortunately I don't think it's open enough for Linux phones to adopt, but I could be mistaken.

To have e2ee, you'd have to have compatible software on both ends. But if you've got that, why bother with the private pipe to Verizon at all?

As another poster said, the underlying tech is not private: https://jmp.chat/privacy

For backwards compatibility, what your proposing is unlikely unless driven through regulation (personal opinion).

Use something over the top (like Signal was suggested), use a non-KYC provider (like Jmp), or use a burner phone.

A non-KYC provider I wouldn't trust to be private personally, especially as a secondary SIM. Maybe slightly above average (the company can't sell the number attached to my name), but I'm sure enough information leaks that a state-level actor could correlate the device to me. The IMEI the tower gets is probably enough to run to Google to figure out who bought the phone.

Even burners may trace back to you through GPS or triangulation depending on how private you really want to be.

What's stopping a carrier from simply E2EE everything from Verizon, and then using Verizon to transfer the data?

Nothing, if you're talking about using them as an internet connection. You're describing Signal and other E2EE applications, basically. If you're talking about SMS and traditional phone calls, no, those protocols don't support encryption because they're not built to. You can jury-rig it which I'll get to later, but otherwise, it's just not possible due to the tech.

the encrypted data could still be collected and sold, but it wouldn't matter if the encryption was setup properly, right?

Correct, as all they'd see is gibberish with no way to decrypt it.

if carriers simply don't support E2EE, couldn't carrier locked phones install the software (since most install software anyways) required to make E2EE work?

Yes, but not with "phone" functions like SMS and PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) calls. SMS character limits are arbitrary and make it impossible to encrypt content in a single message. Signal, back in the Text secure days, used to use MMS to carry encrypted text, or where MMS wasn't available they'd send encrypted chunks and decrypt in the app on the other end. There's a reason they stopped doing that, and a reason it's a rare feature in messaging apps: it's hard to build and maintain and have it be reliable.

PSTN, I don't know of any way to encrypt the call. Edit: Actually I guess over a traditional copper wire you could encrypt a voice call with an eletronic device that could encode your speech into audio, so it’d sound like a dial-up modem if you listened to it, and only another device with the decryption key could decode the audio back into speech, but there’d probably be some delay and I don’t even know if that’d be legal or allowed by the carrier’s TOS. We're still extending bits of the PATRIOT Act, right?

I been thinking about the concept and i dont see why one couldnt build a descentralised network where u pay/get paid per gb every gb someone transfers is a some amount if money that gets split equally among everyone to transfered part of the data. U would have to solve all the problems of people gaming the system ensuring all parties get paid aproprietly without tracing every single packet and undermining privacy.

I recon it would be a legitimate and usfull use of crypocurrency. It would also kill monopolies and seriously fuck with government spying operations since there is now nolonger a single place the cia can put a magic black box and collect everything.

Do you mean E2EE for voice calls and SMS? Otherwise why not use a trusted or personal VPN to solve this problem? I wouldn't bother with trying to secure voice calls provided by a carrier as the recipient would also need those counter measures in which case why not use ab E2EE voice app like signal.

Well, you could do WiFi calls and text with a VPN, use Signal, or Signal with a VPN?

Personally I think there are possible federal wiretapping laws that might have something to say about a telecom that is offering an E2EE secure phone line to someone who is not on duty as a police officer (cop), federal agent (glowie), or other authorized federal, state or local employee (bureaucrat, with data that has legitimate need to be protected).

That's not even considering the entitled political hand-wringing about terrorists, spies, drug dealers, pedophiles and other so called "EVIL" people who "should not have access to such a powerful tool" because "it's our law enforcement's right to catch them in the act." Unfortunately it's a nuanced problem and we can't wave away all of that hand-wringing, even if we think most of it is dramatic and performative. They do have some points.

But...even if we were to suppose for a moment that all of the above issues are not a problem... because something likely happened to wake people up to the need for privacy...we would be facing an entirely new set of technical challenges to hurdle over.

As our current cell networks are structured; we would need to deploy cell phones with phone numbers that do not typically allow routing of outbound unencrypted calls...instead all phone calls would need to be routed over cellular data (AKA LTE or 5G). These calls could definitely be nominally routed by an existing application such as Signal and would require that remote recipients also install the Signal app to receive encrypted calls.

Essentially you'd have a phone which is a Data+SMS only line with a phone number for ease of access. You wouldn't be able to make outbound unencrypted calls or send SMS messages except to emergency services.

First question: there are already free apps (signal) that will provide E2EE through the Verizon network.

Second question: yes, it wouldn’t matter if the encryption was setup right.

Third: carrier locked phones can install the free software, see answer to question one

Somehow I think that the NSA has a hand in the pot.

T-Mobile is not private and neither is any other carrier