"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:47be16be$0$36342$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...

>> Why not? We used to do it on unencrypted analog cordless and cellphones
>> all the time. We simply relied on the law of averages- while it was
>> POSSIBLE our calls were being monitored, it was extremely UNLIKELY they
>> were.
>
> Not me, at least on analog cellular. I had picked up analog cellular calls
> on my SW radio (at least half of the conversation) and that convinced me
> to be cautious. For cordless phones the danger was a bit less as you'd
> have had to be so close to the handset in order to pick it up.

I guess. I knew such eavesdropping was possible, but it wasn't widespread.
After all, credit card fraud is too easy to blame it on an overheard
cellular conversation. Every waiter or store clear I hand my card to
"overhears" it.


>> And BTW, why cross-post to five different carriers' NGs when we have a
>> perfectly good "generic" NG- alt.cellular- for topics applicable to all
>> cellphone users?
>
> It's applicable to these carriers. The alt.cellular group isn't well used.

Catch-22- it's not "well used" because we're posting generic cellular info
to five other NGs! I'm just as guilty, at least sort of- I was going to
post the Voicestick stuff to the alt.cellular NG but used the carrier NGs
instead because I thought you'd be interested, and since I couldn't find a
single posting from you in the alt.cellular group, I assumed you didn't read
it! ;-)