From: andreasa@dhhalden.no (ANDREAS ARFF)
Subject: Re: Bill English
Organization: Ostfold College
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 13:41:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.172913.14484@netcom.com> anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy) writes:
>From: anson@netcom.com (Anson Kennedy)
>Subject: Re: Bill English
>Date: 12 Oct 92 17:29:13 GMT
>andreasa@dhhalden.no (ANDREAS ARFF) writes:
>
>>Think this is a little bit late but anyway...
>
>>I just thought of the Bill English posting some while ago.
>>It's all baloony.
>>Because it is impossible to interrupt phonecalls the way NSA, as he 
>>says, did. (If it was NSA:-)
>>The simple reason is: You cannot, at the receivers end, know who makes the 
>>call (within the technology in todays telephone net).
>>So, if someone made a call to his wife, it's impossible to determine who made
>>it.
>
>Not one to encourage paranoia, but...
>
>Ever hear of Caller ID?  What about ANI (Automatic Number Identification)?
>
>The point is that it is quite possible to know who the caller is at the
>receiver's end "within the technology in today's telephone net."
>
>This of course says nothing about the validity of any individual's claims
>of interrupted phone calls by the NSA.
>-- 
>
>Anson Kennedy                                                  anson@netcom.com
>Secretary of the Georgia Skeptics (but don't even THINK I speak for them!)
>

About 16 years ago when Bill E. was removed from his office, Caller ID and 
ANI was sience fiction for most people.

The telephone net is a "connect one way and disconnect when finnished".
The only way to communicate, the telephones inbetween, is to use signals
that the human ear cannot detect. With dozens of T&T Co's in USA, with
almost as many different standards, to communicate with a foreign country.
I can only say, you'll have a hard time to convince me you're right.
The communication protocoll switches, that would be needed, would be larger 
than you could fit into a house. Don't bullshit me. No way! You guys are far
out if you eats his story.

We all know that it is possible to trace a connection, but it 
takes more time to do, than to connect the telephones.
How do you suppose that any Intelligence Agency could do that faster than the
connection is established, and at the same time, interrupt the telephone 
call (at the other side, remember, Bill said 'at the other side'). 
It could come from "any" telephone in the US, and end up at any telephone
in UK.
Most people can be reached at at least 10 numbers. (Friends, parents, jobb
etc)
I suggest to you american analfabets to read about telephone technology,
both modern, and elderly. Not only advertisments.
Use your common sense, and be a little bit more critisizing of what you 
read.


PS. There is no news group that waists so much bandwidth on bullshit as
this. Please stop it. It could be a really interresting news group if it
wasn't swamped by 'The grays inseminated me with a greenish liquid that 
tasted like strawberry, through the mouth, with an 5 f. long foot, with 
fish-shells on it, that where invisible...' and bullshit like that. DS.
"Also for the not religous confessor, there is a mystery of higher values,
who's birth mankind - to the last - builds upon. They are indisputible. And 
often disregarded. Seldom you hear them beeing prized, as seldom as you hear 
a seeing man prizeing what he sees." Per Lagerkvist, The Fist 
(Free translation from Swedish)
              --Andreas Arff  andreasa@dhhalden.no--