On Wed, Mar 31, 1999 at 10:14:26AM -0500, Mark Bitting wrote:
> Peter van Dijk wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 30, 1999 at 11:59:20AM -0600, Fred Lindberg wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999 12:27:26 -0500, Adam D. McKenna wrote:
> > >
> > > >I'm not sure what they think he could do with a cell phone that he couldn't
> > > >do with a regular phone?
> > >
> > > Cell phones have 64-bit encryption computers that use 56 bit keys in
> > > them ;-)
> >
> > Well if the police/government/anybody wants to eavesdrop on him that's dead easy
>for
> > the phone company. Over here in .nl, mobile carriers are _required_ to be
>technically
> > able to place taps. We're also country with the highest relative number of taps.
> >
> They should require him to have a cell phone. Here in the Land of the
> Free the FBI is trying to implement real-time people-tracking using cell
> phones. (A logical extension of the ruling that 9-1-1 calls have to be
> triangulated and located to within 100 meters.) The cellular operators
> are resisting because of the costs, but the FBI will probably win out.
Over here, the costs are still being debated. But the government (or whoever is
responsible for the taps) has already won. For dutch readers: De volkskrant had a
very good article about this yesterday (page 13).
Greetz, Peter.
--
.| Peter van Dijk | <mo|VERWEG> stoned worden of coden
.| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | <mo|VERWEG> dat is de levensvraag
| <mo|VERWEG> coden of stoned worden
| <mo|VERWEG> stonend worden En coden
| <mo|VERWEG> hmm
| <mo|VERWEG> dan maar stoned worden en slashdot lezen:)
