From: robin_listas@es.invalid   
      
   On 2025-11-28 23:32, Jörg Lorenz wrote:   
   > On 28.11.25 20:49, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >> On 2025-11-28 20:24, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>> On 2025-11-28 19:16, Jörg Lorenz wrote:   
   >>>> On 28.11.25 13:22, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>>>> On 2025-11-28 12:22, Jörg Lorenz wrote:   
   >>>>>> And I tell you once more: WA is not permitted to be used in the   
   >>>>>> education sector, public institutions, military and law enforcement for   
   >>>>>> good reasons.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> LOL. I know for a fat that the judiciary here is using it.   
   >>>>> Politicians too.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> This is a bad lie. Can you deliver a proof, that anything official is   
   >>>> sent by WA? Your post is just a unsubstantiated claim. Decisions are   
   >>>> sent by registered letters.   
   >>>   
   >>> Read the reports about the top prosecutor case in Spain. It is public   
   >>> knowledge, so I will not bother to send a precise link.   
   >>   
   >> Conversation with ChatGpt. If you do not trust it, make your own   
   >> investigation. I asked in Spanish, then translated it with DeepL.   
   >>   
   >> Q: Was the attorney general using WhatsApp?   
   >>   
   >> It depends a little on what you mean by “using WhatsApp,” but   
   yes—Álvaro   
   >> García Ortiz (attorney general) acknowledged that he has the WhatsApp   
   >> application and that he usually deletes his messages for “security   
   >> reasons.”   
   >   
   > This is utter nonsense. This is a private activity and by no means   
   > "official"   
      
   I did not say "official".   
      
   > just because the attorney is using WA. I assume that the   
   > President of the Federal Council in Switzerland is using WA as well but   
   > that does not mean it is legal if it is for official decisions. WA is   
   > not a legal channel to spread official decisions.   
   >   
   > Your Spanish case shows how important it is to forbid the use of   
   > proprietary communication channels in a professional environment.   
   >   
   > (lengthy irrelevant nonsense snipped)   
   >   
   > That shows me your tendency to spread FUD and your inability to deal   
   > with legal categories.   
      
      
   Then why was the court interested in impounding his private   
   conversations? Because even if not official, they can contain   
   conversations about office matters that are of interest to the court   
   proceedings, not really about private conversations.   
      
   Like "send me the email about this pundit (full name here) recognizing   
   he cheated on his taxes".   
      
      
   --   
   Cheers, Carlos.   
   ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)