MN> At one time, I used to listen to cordless and cell phones.  I don't
 MN> any more, because I realized the only calls I liked to listen to
 MN> were the boyfriend-girlfriend fights, the discussions of sexual
 MN> conquests, other luvy duvy affairs, gossip, and basically anything
 MN> that would be embarrassing to the parties involved.  Let's face it,
 MN> not much else would be of interest.  I don't care about Aunt Maudes
 MN> bean salad recipe, or how the neighbors two year old is close to
 MN> being potty trained, or that someone's dinner is going to be late.
 MN> The only interesting stuff is the juicy stuff, which is exactly the
 MN> stuff we have no business listening to.
 
    Also it should be remembered that with cell phones, any given 
conversation is virtually certain to involve total strangers.
 
   But because of their short range, cordless calls will involve your 
immediate neighbors. People you *know,* and know *you.* Things may come up 
that you really don't *want* to know, espically if your name is involved....
 
 MN> I see several the people screaming about Constitutional rights.
 MN> The fact that we have Constitutional rights is WHY we are even
 MN> allowed to have and use a scanner. My understanding is that many
 MN> countries don't allow scanners to be used by the general public.
 
   Or are more tightly restricted than they are here. I wonder how the 
British press are able to be so fast and loose with monitoring the mobile 
phone calls of the royal family...?
 
   And why it took so long for the royals to get wise, and say nothing 
sensitive over the air...?
 
   Frank
 
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------