I don't give a rats hinny what you think about anything ,
personally.

I just passed along information ( not to you ) that is
given by the Feds ( to Feds ) to help employees understand the
current interpretation of the laws. if you have problems with that,
then I'm completely at a loss to understand why you would think
I would ( in your wildest imagination ) care. I don't care about
or follow the classes ... I " really " don't care how they relate
to you or what you think about them either .. period. trying to argue
some point about them , with me , is " extremely " laughable ,
to say the least. go find someone that cares ( ECPA , I sure don't
) and argue with them.

accept it ... disregard it ... shove it up your nose .. It doesn't
really matter to me ... ! why waste your time even messing
around about any of it anyway ? it's all bull hockey rules , made
by bull hockey politicians ..and all swimming in bull hockey
bureaucratic games. YOU become bull hockey ( yourself )
just mucking around in it. ( and worse , it sounds like you are
totally clueless about any of it anyway )

better put your foil helmet back on and take your meds ........ you
seem WAY too lost in all this meaningless drivel. it's not worth
your time or effort. ( you and I are irrelevant to any of it ,
anyway ) Next rule making review ( for the EPCA ) comes up in late
'94 ... contact the FCC or congress and tell them you want in on
the action .... see how much " they " think of what you have to say ,
too. h ah ahaha ahahahaha aaa a you are one trippy dOOd .........



k...........................



On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:26:59 -0000, "Frank"
wrote:

Woolridge ...

^ damn. you got some balls :P

Well, I'm not a bull.

In my haste I forgot to comment on encoding versus encrypting transmissions.
Digital voice is an encoded signal so by his fictitious law we would not be
able to receive it legally. Encoding is nothing more than formatting digital
information so that it can be transmitted. All digital data is encoded.
Encryption would be applied to the data before it is encoded, so the
transmission must be decoded in order to find out if it is encrypted.

Anything that any of our federal, state, or local governmental agencies
transmit is public information. If a federal employee talks to his or her
spouse on an office phone it is not private and never has been. Government
phones, as far as I'm aware, have always been subject to monitoring by the
government.

Frank

Oooops ..make that 2004 instead of '94.

On Fri, 07 Nov 2003 07:49:07 GMT, krackula wrote:


I don't give a rats hinny what you think about anything ,
personally.

I just passed along information ( not to you ) that is
given by the Feds ( to Feds ) to help employees understand the
current interpretation of the laws. if you have problems with that,
then I'm completely at a loss to understand why you would think
I would ( in your wildest imagination ) care. I don't care about
or follow the classes ... I " really " don't care how they relate
to you or what you think about them either .. period. trying to argue
some point about them , with me , is " extremely " laughable ,
to say the least. go find someone that cares ( ECPA , I sure don't
) and argue with them.

accept it ... disregard it ... shove it up your nose .. It doesn't
really matter to me ... ! why waste your time even messing
around about any of it anyway ? it's all bull hockey rules , made
by bull hockey politicians ..and all swimming in bull hockey
bureaucratic games. YOU become bull hockey ( yourself )
just mucking around in it. ( and worse , it sounds like you are
totally clueless about any of it anyway )

better put your foil helmet back on and take your meds ........ you
seem WAY too lost in all this meaningless drivel. it's not worth
your time or effort. ( you and I are irrelevant to any of it ,
anyway ) Next rule making review ( for the EPCA ) comes up in late
'94 ... contact the FCC or congress and tell them you want in on
the action .... see how much " they " think of what you have to say ,
too. h ah ahaha ahahahaha aaa a you are one trippy dOOd .........



k...........................



On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:26:59 -0000, "Frank"
wrote:

Woolridge ...

^ damn. you got some balls :P

Well, I'm not a bull.

In my haste I forgot to comment on encoding versus encrypting transmissions.
Digital voice is an encoded signal so by his fictitious law we would not be
able to receive it legally. Encoding is nothing more than formatting digital
information so that it can be transmitted. All digital data is encoded.
Encryption would be applied to the data before it is encoded, so the
transmission must be decoded in order to find out if it is encrypted.

Anything that any of our federal, state, or local governmental agencies
transmit is public information. If a federal employee talks to his or her
spouse on an office phone it is not private and never has been. Government
phones, as far as I'm aware, have always been subject to monitoring by the
government.

Frank