i remember 25 years agow i asked an ptt guy, in front of 100 listeners .. why the hell the cellphone net (a +b) is not at least a bit encrypted ? this way everyone could follow the conversation... his answer was: there is a simple solution ... its forbidden to use an receiver on those frequency, he should teach us law and regulation...
... it just came to my mind .. sorry to been offtopic > On Wednesday 10. December 2008, Chris Gravell wrote: > > Sounds perfectly reasonable. This is not censorship of ones¹ > > right to be. This is an example of criminality and the onus > > would be on UBS et al to negate it. > > What a new way of interpreting "justice". The acused has to > proove its innocence... > > .oO(isn't that the general appearance of censorship and > totalitarian regimes?) > > No further comments... > > Michi > -- > George Orwell was an optimist. > _______________________________________________ > swinog mailing list > swinog@lists.swinog.ch > http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog > _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
