gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (08/06/85)
I heard on the news today that a NJ assemblyman for Middlesex County (Schwartz I believe) has introduced legislation making the sale, possession and use of radar detectors illegal in New Jersey. As I am not a resident of NJ I cannot contact my representative and complain but I urge all of you netters in NJ and everywhere to fight this sort of legislation. Radar guns should be unconstiutional but the case has never made it to the Supreme Court. Radar guns are electronic surveillance devices that the police use at random on citizens who are driving motor vehicles. Most motorists obey the speed limit (more than half), a few speed (less than half, the %s don't matter). However, the police indiscriminately use electronic surveillance devices to sample the speed of all cars. They then apprehend the drivers who are exceeding the limit. A radar detector is the citizen's only defense against this invasion of privacy (unwarranted search and seizure). Not to mention the fact that the police radar signal is a publicly broadcasted radio signal which, according to the FCC, can be picked up by anyone. If the government outlaws the use of radar detectors as Schwartz (sp?) has proposed, it will be an additional slap in the face for citizens' privacy. If the government believes it has the right to use electronic surveillance devices on all motorists to catch speeders, what will stop it from using electronic surveillance devices to monitor all conversations in public places in an effort to catch drug dealers? Not only must we fight the government's efforts to confiscate our only protection against these electronic surveillance methods but we must fight against the USE of these surveillance methods. You may flame me for sounding paranoid, but I am angry at the fact that each year the government tries to enact more unconstitutional laws to control our behavior. Russ Sharples homxa!gritz
ayers@convexs.UUCP (08/08/85)
/* Written 4:48 pm Aug 6, 1985 by jay@allegra.UUCP in convexs:net.legal */ I don't believe that anyone who really obeyed the speed laws would agree that radar guns are unconstitutional or feel his privacy invaded. These laws exist for a purpose, and their enforcement helps keep our roads somewhat safe. I feel threatened when someone whizzes by at 80 MPH and cuts in front of me; I *want* someone to be there to catch these guys... /* End of text from convexs:net.legal */ So what do speed limits have to do with your argument? By your own statement, the only way those people will not drive that way is if there is a policeman right there with a radar gun. What you are complaining about is "reckless driving," or "speed unsafe for driving conditions..." There are already plenty of laws to cover that. I always love a "legal" argument that rests on "well, you only stand up for the rights of _________ because you're one too..." It seems so adult. blues, II (If you meet the Buddha on the road, cut him off for me)
bob@ulose.UUCP ( Bob Bismuth ) (08/09/85)
> If the government outlaws the use of radar detectors as Schwartz (sp?) has > proposed, it will be an additional slap in the face for citizens' privacy. > If the government believes it has the right to use electronic surveillance > devices on all motorists to catch speeders, what will stop it from using > electronic surveillance devices to monitor all conversations in public > places in an effort to catch drug dealers? > > Russ Sharples > homxa!gritz I'm not sure of the logical path which leads from using radar, to detect speeders, to the government turing into Big Brother and invading everyone's privacy. However, hasn't every anti-antidector battle been won on the basis of everyone's constitutional right to monitor ANY electromagnetic frequency? I may be wrong, but I believe that many states have had their laws over turned using that arguement. My own pet hate is Conn., where it seems they keep managing to find loopholes to prevent the use of radar detectors, either by confiscation, fines or increased fines if you have one in your car (even if it's not turned on). Anyway, I'd suggest NJ people fight it on the grounds of their right to listen/monitor. -- bob (decvax!ulose!bob)
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (08/11/85)
> I heard on the news today that a NJ assemblyman for Middlesex County > (Schwartz I believe) has introduced legislation making the sale, possession > and use of radar detectors illegal in New Jersey. As I am not a resident of > NJ I cannot contact my representative and complain but I urge all of you > netters in NJ and everywhere to fight this sort of legislation. > > Radar guns should be unconstiutional but the case has never made it to the > Supreme Court. Radar guns are electronic surveillance devices that the ... > ... > You may flame me for sounding paranoid, but I am angry at the fact that each > year the government tries to enact more unconstitutional laws to control our > behavior. Why not get to the root of the problem and campaign for the abolition of all speed limit laws? If states have speed limit laws, then clearly there must be some method for police to ascertain the speed of moving vehicles. What do you want police to do if they have no radar devices? Work on an honor system and place roadside signs which say to motorists: "Flash your lights if you are speeding so we can stop you and write a summons."? Radar detectors are devices to facilitate the commission of a crime - speeding. Period. If you feel that a speed limit encroaches upon your personal freedom then, as I said above, get the laws abolished. Also, more sophisticated devices than radar detectors are presently being developed by at least two companies that I know of. They use a low power infra-red laser which works on a doppler principle, and is precisely aimed at suspect verhicles using an optical sight. One company is specifically developing their product around a video camera/recorder which will take photographs of vehicles exceeding a preset threshhold, with a superimposed time/date/speed legend. They even have an optional second generation image intensifier for nighttime use. This IR doppler method has been feasible for many years; only cost has been a limiting factor. I understand that a cost of less than $ 5K will shortly be reached, which will make it a viable product for police department budgets. I can't wait to see the detectors for modulated IR... :-) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ | Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York | | UUCP {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry | | {rice,shell}!baylor!/ | | VOICE 716/741-9185 syr!buf!/ | | TELEX {via WUI} 69-71461 ansbak: ELGECOMCLR | | | | "Have you hugged your cat today?" | +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/12/85)
> I'm not sure of the logical path which leads from using radar, to detect > speeders, to the government turing into Big Brother and invading everyone's > privacy. However, hasn't every anti-antidector battle been won on the > basis of everyone's constitutional right to monitor ANY electromagnetic > frequency? Well it's not exactly a constitutional right, but I think the theory is more or less as follows: The Federal government considers the airwaves to be a public resource: limited in quantity and therefore regulated for the public good. If you want to use the airwaves, you must obtain a license from the Federal Communications Commission. One of the things you give up as a consequence of obtaining this license is any power to prevent anyone who wishes from intercepting your transmissions. That is: a license to use a particular frequency is a license to BROADCAST on that frequency to ANYONE who wants to receive your transmission. It is my undersanding, possibly incorrect, that the FCC insists that only it has the authority to regulate devices that transmit radio frequencies, and that no one may enjoin the use of radio receivers of any kind. This includes radar detectors. It is on this basis that several states' laws against radar detectors have been struck down. As a practical matter, of course, this does not stop the states from enforcing their illegal prohibitions anyway. Disclaimer #1: I am not a lawyer; everything I have said here is my own opinion and may well be incorrect. Verify things for yourself if you want to rely on them. Disclaimer #2: I have stated what I believe is the Feds' philosophical justification for their regulation of the airwaves. I do not agree with this philosophy: I believe that radio bandwidth should be private property that is bought and sold like any other property. However, arguments about legality of radar detectors must be based on reality as it now exists, not on things as we would like them to be.
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/12/85)
> police use at random on citizens who are driving motor vehicles. Most > motorists obey the speed limit (more than half), a few speed (less than > half, the %s don't matter). However, the police indiscriminately use In houston I'd say less than 10% of drivers obey the speed limit. When the guy on radio says "average speed on I-10 is 55MPH" you can bet it's at least 60, maybe 65. -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (08/13/85)
>From: larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) > > Radar detectors are devices to facilitate the commission of a crime - >speeding. Period. If you feel that a speed limit encroaches upon your >personal freedom then, as I said above, get the laws abolished. > ..................... I take it then, that if the police want to crack down on drug traffic in NYC they should feel free to search everybody on the streets of NYC. You never know who will be carrying drugs. And, if they want to crack down on people who kill others with illegal guns they can feel free to search every house in NYC to confiscate and illegal guns or find any guns that might have been used in the commission of a crime. Our legal system is set up not to ensure that violaters of laws are caught but rather that innocent citizens who are pursing their own LEGAL happiness are not subjected to unwarrented and humiliating police scrutiny! > Also, more sophisticated devices than radar detectors are presently >being developed by at least two companies that I know of. They use a low >power infra-red laser which works on a doppler principle, and is precisely >aimed at suspect verhicles using an optical sight. One company is specifically >developing their product around a video camera/recorder which will take >photographs of vehicles exceeding a preset threshhold, with a superimposed >time/date/speed legend. > ..................... As far as I know current law requires that evidence provided in court be validated by a human witness to the crime. These picture taking devices have been around for a long time but have not been accepted as legal evidence of a crime. I guess some people aren't comfortable with a machine producing ironclad evidence that they committed a crime. In Japan they put a time stamp on your turnpike ticket when you start, They calculate your average speed when you exit and write you ticket if it is over the limit. I'm they would love to do that on the turnpikes and parkways here execpt that there is no witness as to when and where you were speeding. > I can't wait to see the detectors for modulated IR... :-) I can't wait to see the lawsuits when one of those low power lasers blasts someone's retina. As to defeating it, since its infra-red, just put an IR source on the front of the car to scramble the returned signal. Right now the FCC says it's illegal to do that with radar but they have no power over IR. Russ Sharples homxa!gritz
jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) (08/14/85)
In article <1101@homxa.UUCP> gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) writes: > In Japan they put a time stamp on your turnpike ticket when you start, > They calculate your average speed when you exit and write you ticket > if it is over the limit. I'm they would love to do that on the > turnpikes and parkways here execpt that there is no witness as > to when and where you were speeding. On at least one turnpike in Indiana the toll is charged based upon your entry and exit points which are punched (with the time) on a card. I've been through it a few time at average speeds *much* higher than 55, but the driver wasn't questioned. (Don't flame me, I wasn't the driver.) Seems they could save money on extra traffic patrols (assuming that they run extra squads just to catch speeders), but then, they would need extra enforcement personnel at the toll stations to deal with the beligerent gorilla who's just been told he owes the state 50 bucks..... Jonathan E. Quist ``I deny this is a disclaimer.''
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/14/85)
Guess what, Sharples (are you related to Mel?), the time stamp is used on the NJ Turnpike. You can't see the time anymore, but it is there. Enter the TP at exit 14 and go south at 90 per and leave at exit 11 and see what the tolltaker says. That is if you could average 90 in that distance. T. C. Wheeler
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (08/15/85)
In article <1081@homxa.UUCP> gritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) writes: > Radar guns should be unconstiutional but the case has never made it to the > Supreme Court. Radar guns are electronic surveillance devices that the > police use at random on citizens who are driving motor vehicles. Most > motorists obey the speed limit (more than half), a few speed (less than > half, the %s don't matter). However, the police indiscriminately use > electronic surveillance devices to sample the speed of all cars. They then > apprehend the drivers who are exceeding the limit. A radar detector is the > citizen's only defense against this invasion of privacy (unwarranted search > and seizure). Not to mention the fact that the police radar signal is a > publicly broadcasted radio signal which, according to the FCC, can be picked > up by anyone. A search is the invasion of your privacy. Radar guns only measure the speed of your vehicle. Since your vehicle is moving in public, its speed is public, not private. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to use radar guns to measure your speed. There is nothing inherently wrong with *electronic* surveillance devices. Planting an electronic listening device or hiding and eavesdropping are equally odious. Since the police can estimate your speed by looking at you, they can use an electronic device for the same purpose. In either case, if you are exceeding the speed limit by more than the margin of error for the measurement technique, you can be convicted of speeding.
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (08/15/85)
One interesting point about radar detector laws......
In some area where radar detectors are already illegal a few people have been
using radar jammers.
This devices emits microwaves in the same frequency as the radar guns and gives
the cops a garabge reading.
So there is more them one way to beat Radar Guns.
elricgritz@homxa.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (08/16/85)
>From: tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) > >Guess what, Sharples (are you related to Mel?), the time stamp is used >on the NJ Turnpike. You can't see the time anymore, but it is there. >Enter the TP at exit 14 and go south at 90 per and leave at exit 11 and >see what the tolltaker says. That is if you could average 90 in that distance. >T. C. Wheeler Guess what Wheeler, the time stamp is used on probably every turnpike in the country, but it is not LEGAL EVIDENCE that you were speeding (not yet at least). We should probably stop talking about this lest the pinhead legislators get hold of the idea. Russ Sharples homxa!gritz
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/18/85)
> One interesting point about radar detector laws...... > In some area where radar detectors are already illegal a few people have been > using radar jammers. > This devices emits microwaves in the same frequency as the radar guns and gives > the cops a garabge reading. > So there is more them one way to beat Radar Guns. Of course, jammers are illegal everywhere, not just in a few states.
hgp@houem.UUCP (#H.PAGE) (08/19/85)
>> One interesting point about radar detector laws...... >> In some area where radar detectors are already illegal a few people have been >> using radar jammers. >> This devices emits microwaves in the same frequency as the radar guns and gives >> the cops a garabge reading. >> So there is more them one way to beat Radar Guns. >> elric I assume your definition of beating radar guns includes spending time in the big house.
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/19/85)
Transmitting any signal with the express purpose of jamming another signal is INDEED illegal. Yeah, I know, governments do it all the time. But, the point is, to try to circumvent the law in this manner in a no-no. T. C. Wheeler
braman@dataio.UUCP (Rick Braman) (08/19/85)
> > > One interesting point about radar detector laws...... > In some area where radar detectors are already illegal a few people have been > using radar jammers. > This devices emits microwaves in the same frequency as the radar guns and gives > the cops a garabge reading. > So there is more them one way to beat Radar Guns. > elric They better hope they never get caught, because if they do they will be in big time trouble. Not only will the police have their way with them but the FCC will also want to *talk* with them. -- Rick Braman Data I/O Corporation Redmond, WA UUCP uw-beaver!teltone!dataio!braman
maa@ssc-bee.UUCP (Mark A Allyn) (08/20/85)
> > . . .where radar detectors are already illegal a few people have been > > using radar jammers. > > This devices emits microwaves in the same frequency as the radar guns > > They better hope they never get caught, because if they do they will be in > big time trouble. Not only will the police have their way with them but the > FCC will also want to *talk* with them. > > -- > Rick Braman > Data I/O Corporation > Redmond, WA Hate to say this, but with all of the de-regulations and Reagan's trimming of their budget, the FCC probably doesn't have the time or money to be able to afford to worry about such little things as this when they can't even control what's being said on TV. 'Last I knew, they've been laying people off. Mark Allyn Boeing Aerospace Kent, WA !uw-beaver!ssc-vax!ssc-bee!maa
parnass@ihu1h.UUCP (Bob Parnass, AJ9S) (08/21/85)
x
Seems like we had this discussion 2 years ago on the
net.
Using radar jamming equipment to foil traffic radar is
in violation of several federal and international regu-
lations:
- FCC Rules & Regulations:
- R&R 89.51 - Station Authorization Required.
- R&R 89.117 - Acceptability of Transmitters
for Licensing
- Communications Act of 1934:
- Sec 324 - Use of Minimum Power
- International Telecommunications Commission Con-
vention 1947:
- Article 44 - Harmful Interference
- International Radio Regulations Annexed to the
International Telecommunications Convention 1947:
- Article 13 - Unnecessary transmissions and
superfluous signals
- Article 22 - Station license
- Geneva Treaty 1959:
- Article 1 Sec 3 - Harmful interference
--
===============================================================================
Bob Parnass, Bell Telephone Laboratories - ihnp4!ihu1h!parnass - (312)979-5414john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (08/21/85)
[munch, munch] I seem to remember reading something to the effect that use of a jammer could only be prosecuted by the feds, since it is an offense against FCC regs. Even then, if the jammer was using less than 100 milliwatts, it would be legal, at least in the FCC's eyes. I also wonder if the average police officer would be able to detect if he had been jammed, given a jammer that does more that simply confuse the radar gun. Of course, even a Buford T. Justice could tell if you go wizzing by at 90, and your jammer had the radar gun display 55. Plans for such a jammer are in the back of several car magazines.
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/22/85)
> One interesting point about radar detector laws...... > In some area where radar detectors are already illegal a few people have been > using radar jammers. > This devices emits microwaves in the same frequency as the radar guns and gives > the cops a garabge reading. This is a big federal no-no, you don't need a local law about it. The FCC can string you up for malicious interference.
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (08/24/85)
In article <> ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > >Of course, jammers are illegal everywhere, not just in a few states. That is true, but jammers are harder to spot, as they are not mounted on the dashboard. They are mounted behind the grill. They also only work on radar guns used in front of you. Elric of Imrryr
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (08/27/85)
<a line> The plans for a radar jammer that I have access to use a device called a 'Gunnplexer'. Which is supposed also used on dept. store automatic door openners. The devices I believe are fairly low power. If anyone wants the actual text of the article, just say so. (Info provided for information purposes only..) Elric
john@gcc-bill.ARPA (John Allred) (08/28/85)
In article <257@proper.UUCP> elric@proper.UUCP (Elric of Imrryr) writes: >The plans for a radar jammer that I have access to use a device called a >'Gunnplexer'. Which is supposed also used on dept. store automatic door >openners. > The devices I believe are fairly low power. >If anyone wants the actual text of the article, just say so. >(Info provided for information purposes only..) > Elric Absolutely!! Post it!! -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-bill!john
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (09/05/85)
> Transmitting any signal with the express purpose of jamming another signal > is INDEED illegal. Yeah, I know, governments do it all the time. But, the > point is, to try to circumvent the law in this manner in a no-no. > T. C. Wheeler True enough, but what about RE-transmitting their signal? Suppose I spotted a speed trap and turned on my traveling-wave amplifier which would then amplify the received radar and pump out enough signal to french-fry the front end of the radar gun. I haven't originated a signal-- I just sort of helped the radar gun out a little... -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (09/05/85)
> > Transmitting any signal with the express purpose of jamming another signal > > is INDEED illegal. Yeah, I know, governments do it all the time. But, the > > point is, to try to circumvent the law in this manner in a no-no. > > T. C. Wheeler > > True enough, but what about RE-transmitting their signal? Suppose I > spotted a speed trap and turned on my traveling-wave amplifier which > would then amplify the received radar and pump out enough signal to > french-fry the front end of the radar gun. I haven't originated a signal-- > I just sort of helped the radar gun out a little... > -- It's still malicious interference.
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (09/06/85)
Forget about the technicalities of the electronics. Interfering with a police officer in the "lawful performance of his duties" is a *felony* in most states. -Phil
hgp@houem.UUCP (#H.PAGE) (09/07/85)
> > > Transmitting any signal with the express purpose of jamming another signal > > > is INDEED illegal. Yeah, I know, governments do it all the time. But, the > > > point is, to try to circumvent the law in this manner in a no-no. > > > T. C. Wheeler > > > > True enough, but what about RE-transmitting their signal? Suppose I > > spotted a speed trap and turned on my traveling-wave amplifier which > > would then amplify the received radar and pump out enough signal to > > french-fry the front end of the radar gun. I haven't originated a signal-- > > I just sort of helped the radar gun out a little... > > -- > It's still malicious interference. Now what what would happen if I went out and bought a RADAR gun ($2000 ?) and drove with is pointing toward oncoming traffic ??? -- Howard G. Page AT&T Bell Laboratories, HO 3D-534 (201) 949-0366 ..!ihnp4!houem!hgp
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (09/10/85)
In article <373@houem.UUCP> hgp@houem.UUCP (#H.PAGE) writes: >> > > Transmitting any signal with the express purpose of jamming another signal >> > > is INDEED illegal. Yeah, I know, governments do it all the time. But, the >> > > point is, to try to circumvent the law in this manner in a no-no. >> > > T. C. Wheeler >> > Is it illegal for the governments to do? Under what juristicion? What are the penalties, for governments, for individuals?
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (09/19/85)
In article <> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: >> Transmitting any signal with the express purpose of jamming another signal >> is INDEED illegal. Yeah, I know, governments do it all the time. But, the >> point is, to try to circumvent the law in this manner in a no-no. >> T. C. Wheeler Well, a company called Phillps-Tech (I think) is selling Radar Detector (@ about $150.00 each). It says in their ad 'Not FCC approved'. So it can't be all that illegal, and I know they are a legit company because I've bought a microwave TV anteena from them. Elric
elric@proper.UUCP (elric) (09/22/85)
In article <> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: >> Transmitting any signal with the express purpose of jamming another signal >> is INDEED illegal. Yeah, I know, governments do it all the time. But, the >> point is, to try to circumvent the law in this manner in a no-no. >> T. C. Wheeler Well, a company called Phillps-Tech (I think) is selling Radar Detector ^jammers^(not detectors) (@ about $150.00 each). It says in their ad 'Not FCC approved'. So it can't be all that illegal, and I know they are a legit company because I've bought a microwave TV anteena from them. Elric