Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote: > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20 > news:b61949089c833bede77f7815a32964d7@dizum.com:A vortex formed > within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this: >=20 > > Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most > > anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? > > Why or why not. Anyone who believes that the government only > > listens to terrorists I think is really taking a big risk > > especially if they are on Bush's black list (I am sure he has one). > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are=20 > knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a > cell phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws > that would apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was > sent openly over the airwaves.
Total, made up, bullshit.
There's no such thing as cell phone "implied consent" laws you deviate asshat. Cell users have the same expectation of privacy one has using a land line, or speaking in a low voice. It requires specific legal authorization to intercept and record any of those things, although I can understand why a piece of subhuman refuse like yourself might be so paranoid they'd believe otherwise.
>> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most >> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? >> Why or why not. Anyone who believes that the government only listens >> to terrorists I think is really taking a big risk especially if they >> are on Bush's black list (I am sure he has one).
> The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are > knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a > cell phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws > that would apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was > sent openly over the airwaves.
>> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most >> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? Why or >> why not. Anyone who believes that the government only listens to >> terrorists I think is really taking a big risk especially if they are on >> Bush's black list (I am sure he has one).
> The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are > knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a cell > phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws that would > apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was sent openly over > the airwaves.
Why don't you post your address here, I'll look up the law in your area for you.
traveler 66 wrote: > On 15 Feb 2007 13:46:37 GMT, Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote: >=20 > > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20 > > news:b61949089c833bede77f7815a32964d7@dizum.com:A vortex formed > > within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this: > >=20 > >> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most > >> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? > >> Why or why not. Anyone who believes that the government only > >> listens to terrorists I think is really taking a big risk > >> especially if they are on Bush's black list (I am sure he has one). > >>=20 > >=20 > > The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are=20 > > knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a > > cell phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws > > that would apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was > > sent openly over the airwaves. >=20 > Why don't you post your address here, I'll look up the law in your > area for you.
Do you mean "look up" as in the way you ignore and deny the laws in all the cheap hosting privacy SHIT HOLES where you rent server space just so you can swindle people with your off-shore lies?
Slimy asslickers like you offering legal research assistance is BEYOND ironic. How many times have you tried to tell us local laws and MLATS don't matter now? A couple dozen?=20
How's it feel to have your bullshit come back to haunt you? Hmmmmm?
>> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most >> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? Why or >> why not. Anyone who believes that the government only listens to >> terrorists I think is really taking a big risk especially if they are on >> Bush's black list (I am sure he has one).
> The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are > knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a cell > phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws that would > apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was sent openly over > the airwaves.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:50:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote: >There's no such thing as cell phone "implied consent" laws you deviate >asshat. Cell users have the same expectation of privacy one has using a >land line, or speaking in a low voice. It requires specific legal >authorization to intercept and record any of those things, although I
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:00:04 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio wrote: > traveler 66 wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2007 13:46:37 GMT, Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote: >>=20 >>> Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20 >>> news:b61949089c833bede77f7815a32964d7@dizum.com:A vortex formed >>> within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this: >>>=20 >>>> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most >>>> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? >>>> Why or why not. Anyone who believes that the government only >>>> listens to terrorists I think is really taking a big risk >>>> especially if they are on Bush's black list (I am sure he has one). >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are=20 >>> knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a >>> cell phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws >>> that would apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was >>> sent openly over the airwaves. >>=20 >> Why don't you post your address here, I'll look up the law in your >> area for you.
> Do you mean "look up" as in the way you ignore and deny the laws in all > the cheap hosting privacy SHIT HOLES where you rent server space just > so you can swindle people with your off-shore lies?
> Slimy asslickers like you offering legal research assistance is BEYOND > ironic. How many times have you tried to tell us local laws and MLATS > don't matter now? A couple dozen?=20
> How's it feel to have your bullshit come back to haunt you? Hmmmmm?
> LOL!
You're mixing me up with someone else, but a troll like you wouldn't care anyway. Give your friend eggpunt a great big hug and have a great day.
AZ Nomad wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:50:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio > <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> >There's no such thing as cell phone "implied consent" laws you > >deviate asshat. Cell users have the same expectation of privacy one > >has using a land line, or speaking in a low voice. It requires > >specific legal authorization to intercept and record any of those > >things, although I
> Sheesh. Who pissed on your wheaties?
Maybe he just doesn't care for diaper sniping pedofucks pretending to be legal experts in between rants about how misunderstood and "picked on" pedofucks are.
Careful now. Remember what happened the last time you tried spelling like a real human being. Got real ugly, didn't it? Embarrassed the living SHIT out of yourself, didn't you?
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 09:20:10 +0100 (CET), Non scrivetemi wrote: > Gerog Adem puppet #66 wrote:
>> You're mixing
> Don't you mean "your"?
> Careful now. Remember what happened the last time you tried spelling > like a real human being. Got real ugly, didn't it? Embarrassed the > living SHIT out of yourself, didn't you?
> Careful now. Remember what happened the last time you tried spelling > like a real human being. Got real ugly, didn't it? Embarrassed the > living SHIT out of yourself, didn't you?
> <snicker>
It looks like either Cotse or Metroskunk are spamming the newsgroups again, frack off loosers. You sound about as worth while as a Metroskunk privacy policy with a Cotse twist
blackhat wrote: > On Feb 17, 3:20 am, "Non scrivetemi" > <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote: > > Gerog Adem puppet #66 wrote:
> > > You're mixing
> > Don't you mean "your"?
> > Careful now. Remember what happened the last time you tried spelling > > like a real human being. Got real ugly, didn't it? Embarrassed the > > living SHIT out of yourself, didn't you?
> > <snicker>
> It looks like either Cotse or Metroskunk are spamming the newsgroups > again, frack off loosers.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:30:10 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote: >AZ Nomad wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:50:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio >> <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>> >There's no such thing as cell phone "implied consent" laws you >> >deviate asshat. Cell users have the same expectation of privacy one >> >has using a land line, or speaking in a low voice. It requires >> >specific legal authorization to intercept and record any of those >> >things, although I
>> Sheesh. Who pissed on your wheaties? >Maybe he just doesn't care for diaper sniping pedofucks pretending to be >legal experts in between rants about how misunderstood and "picked on" >pedofucks are. >Or don't you have a problem with pedofucks?
Do you often refer to yourself in the third person?
AZ Nomad wrote: > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:30:10 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio > <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> >AZ Nomad wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:50:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio > >> <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> >> >There's no such thing as cell phone "implied consent" laws you > >> >deviate asshat. Cell users have the same expectation of privacy > >> >one has using a land line, or speaking in a low voice. It requires > >> >specific legal authorization to intercept and record any of those > >> >things, although I
> >> Sheesh. Who pissed on your wheaties?
> >Maybe he just doesn't care for diaper sniping pedofucks pretending > >to be legal experts in between rants about how misunderstood and > >"picked on" pedofucks are.
> >Or don't you have a problem with pedofucks?
> Do you often refer to yourself in the third person?
WTF are you babbling on about?
Lemme break it down into bite sized chunks for ya', short bus. Someone bitchslaps a raving pedofuck and you take exception to it. That begs the question..... why would a normal person wet their panties over a little rough language when it's directed at someone whose repeatedly confessed and defended pedophilia?
AZ Nomad wrote: > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 07:30:10 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio > <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> >AZ Nomad wrote:
> >> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:50:02 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio > >> <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> >> >There's no such thing as cell phone "implied consent" laws you > >> >deviate asshat. Cell users have the same expectation of privacy > >> >one has using a land line, or speaking in a low voice. It requires > >> >specific legal authorization to intercept and record any of those > >> >things, although I
> >> Sheesh. Who pissed on your wheaties?
> >Maybe he just doesn't care for diaper sniping pedofucks pretending > >to be legal experts in between rants about how misunderstood and > >"picked on" pedofucks are.
> >Or don't you have a problem with pedofucks?
> Do you often refer to yourself in the third person?
Do YOU often pretend everyone who points out your ignorance is the same person while you're evading questions about whether or not you have a problem with using little kids as sexual objects?
Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote: > > Total, made up, bullshit. > >=20 > > There's no such thing as cell phone "implied consent" laws you > > deviate asshat. Cell users have the same expectation of privacy one > > has using a land line, or speaking in a low voice. It requires > > specific legal authorization to intercept and record any of those > > things, although I can understand why a piece of subhuman refuse > > like yourself might be so paranoid they'd believe otherwise. > >=20 >=20 > Made up? Really? Gee!=20
Yeah. Really. Total bullshit just like you and everything about you.
> Implied consent is a blanket coverage rule applying to anything and=20 > everything. Judges decission. Want a couple of examples? Okay! >=20 > A neighbor kid got convicted for growing a pot plant in his closet. > It was found when police entered without a warrant and searched. The > judge ruled that no warrant was needed in the case because the door > was unlocked, thus consent to search was implied.
Made up lies. This never happened and the proof will be you'll never provide a single cite to prop up this fantasy. The police had to have some other probable cause or they couldn't have legally entered. An unlocked door don't cut it, liar. =20
> The bottom of a friends garage door broke and you could see the > bumper of a car inside he was restoring. The "city beautification" > people went in his garage and noted there was no license plate on the > car. It wasn't being driven or even drivable, but he had to get > insurance and plates setting him back on his project. Why? Because > the judge ruled the city had a right to enter his garage because it > was implied consent due to his not having no trespassing signs posted.
No, it was because the car was visible from the street and violated local ordinances. This has nothing at all to do with anything. Your idiot friend should have fixed his garage door instead of molesting children.
If this isn't made up too that is, which considering the source is a distinct possibility.
>=20 > Another friend in broadcasting got curious a couple of years ago and=20 > researched what can and can't legally be done about anything going > over the airwaves. Bottom line is if it's openly broadcast it can be > ruled admissable due to impied consent. This includes EVERYTHING > going over the airwaves. Including cell phones. Do your homework, Mr. > know it all. I have.
You've done nothing of the sort. Public radio broadcasts are INTENDED for public consumption you ignorant pervert. Telephone conversations are not. It's all about reasonable expectation of privacy.
>=20 > Anything and everything falls under implied consent. All it takes is
Bullshit. 100% cow flop. You're a straw grabbing, lying, asslicker. Most of what you've posted is obvious lies and the rest is irrelevant.
> Maybe you should look into the no knock clauses in the laws these
Maybe you should seek professional help for your delusions as well as your perversions.
> Of course, from your responce, you're probably law enforcement (like
ROTFLMAO!
What a fucking MORON! You don't even have enough confidence in your OWN bullshit that you can post it without flinging around some childish, idiotic accusations.
You do more to demolish your own stupidity than I ever could, asslicker.
Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote: > "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote in=20 > news:ad44b9b6ceb5f9c0125a2772c9096f81@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info:A > vortex formed within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became > this: >=20 > > Gerog Adem puppet #66 wrote: > > =20 > >> You're mixing=20 > >=20 > > Don't you mean "your"? >=20 > No. He means "you are mixing". A conjuction, if you haven't heard of > them. Talk about embarrassing yourself.
Um.... "he"?
YOU just replied as "he" you cumbubbling jackwit.
> It might interest some to know that on a university level the worst=20 > spellers in the nation are those with masters degrees or PHDs in
No, they're not. You made this up just like you make up most of the crap you post.
Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote: > >>=20 > >> It looks like either Cotse or Metroskunk are spamming the > >> newsgroups again, frack off loosers. > >=20 > > It's spelled _losers_ you illiterate cunt. > >=20 > >=20 > He's illiterate?
Yeah "he" is. Incurably and famously. Remember "his" little spelling correction fiasco a while ago and how it backfired because "he's" too fucking STUPID to spell 4-6 letter words consistently?
I'll bet you do. LOL!=20
> Ever heard of slang?
ROTFL!!
That's the best you've got? Try to brush your illiteracy off as "slang" with another one of your sock puppets??
Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote: > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20 > news:1af100c765b949c399bfc6d598ce0b0e@dizum.com:A vortex formed > within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this: >=20 > > traveler 66 wrote:
<CLIP>
> WTF are you talking about (in your further attempts to confuse > issues). >=20 > I don't have a server, nor am I connected to anyone who does beyond
ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Forget to change socks there, asslicker?
So it turns out the "traveler" puppet is also a pedofuck pervert called Eggfart. That explains a lot. You were always "both" just a couple of fucktarded asslickers. It's good to know Privacy.LIE and its twin sister scam services have such a distinguished customer base.
Owned by perverted racists..... patronized by racist perverts.=20
"EggplantŠ" <vegetab...@theguarden.com> wrote: > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote ...
> > traveler 66 wrote: > I don't have a server ...
Racist, pervert, privacy.lie puppet... you really do have all the bases covered, don't you?
I'm glad I read this group. It's always good to know just what sort of subhuman refuse owns, operates, and advocates some of the so called "anonymity services".
> > "Non scrivetemi" <nonscrivet...@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info> wrote > > in=20 > > news:ad44b9b6ceb5f9c0125a2772c9096f81@pboxmix.winstonsmith.info:A > > vortex formed within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became > > this: > >=20 > > > Gerog Adem puppet #66 wrote: > > > =20 > > >> You're mixing=20 > > >=20 > > > Don't you mean "your"? > >=20 > > No. He means "you are mixing". A conjuction, if you haven't heard of > > them. Talk about embarrassing yourself.
> Um.... "he"?
> YOU just replied as "he" you cumbubbling jackwit.
> > It might interest some to know that on a university level the > > worst=20 spellers in the nation are those with masters degrees or > > PHDs in
> No, they're not. You made this up just like you make up most of the > crap you post.
All makes sense now. If you look at the technically incompetent garbage traveler/nobrains/puppet-of-the-day posts and compare it to the glaring stupidity of "Eggfart" it's identical. Fact free, mindless tripe. Finding out that a self professed child molester is also a confessed antisemitic only ices the cake.
This guy is one fucked up piece of work, for sure. But on the bright side it's good evidence that all the alt.privacy.* group noise is being generated by one asshole. ;)
> >> On 15 Feb 2007 13:46:37 GMT, Eggplant=C2=A9 wrote: > >>=20 > >> > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in=20 > >> > news:b61949089c833bede77f7815a32964d7@dizum.com:A vortex formed > >> > within the smokey haze of my alledged mind and became this: > >> >=20 > >> >> Other than having crypto phones on each end what's the safest, most > >> >> anonymous phone you can own nowadays? Is cell safer than landline? > >> >> Why or why not. Anyone who believes that the government only > >> >> listens to terrorists I think is really taking a big risk > >> >> especially if they are on Bush's black list (I am sure he has one). > >> >>=20 > >> >=20 > >> > The problem with cell phones is the "implied consent" laws. You are= > 20 > >> > knowingly using a portable transmitter/reciever. Anything done on a > >> > cell phone can be used in court without any privacy protection laws > >> > that would apply to landlines. No warrant necessary because it was > >> > sent openly over the airwaves. > >>=20 > >> Why don't you post your address here, I'll look up the law in your > >> area for you.
> > Do you mean "look up" as in the way you ignore and deny the laws in all > > the cheap hosting privacy SHIT HOLES where you rent server space just > > so you can swindle people with your off-shore lies?
> > Slimy asslickers like you offering legal research assistance is BEYOND > > ironic. How many times have you tried to tell us local laws and MLATS > > don't matter now? A couple dozen?=20
> > How's it feel to have your bullshit come back to haunt you? Hmmmmm?
> > LOL!
> WTF are you talking about (in your further attempts to confuse issues).
> I don't have a server, nor am I connected to anyone who does beyond being > a very satified customer with prili. Nothing has come back to haunt me at > all. Who ever said the laws don't matter? Having to put words in peoples > mouths to try to look wise again I see. When do you offer anything to > help anyone? You're just a troll.
Oooooopsie!
You do realize you just outed another one of your sock puppets, right?
So now we know the traveler/blackhat/ad-nauseam privacy service shill is a filthy child molester too. Who hates Jews.
|
