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
mikey@trsvax (08/08/85)
Give ME a break!!!! NJ is probably the state I would name for the most abuse of authority for revenue of any state I've lived in or traveled through. I wouldn't trust a local police officer there unless there were checks and balances, and a detector is my balance. As for guns vs normal always on radar, I can see problems with guns. I almost had an accident on the PA turnpike one time because of a state trooper with a handgun. He parked in front of an parked car and stood at the drivers door. When he wanted to check speed, he turned and brought the radar gun up and pointed it at traffic. From my point of view, it looked like he was drawing a firearm. The driver in front of me panicked, jabbed the brakes and spun off the road. There was no damage, but I'm sure this tactic stopped. Unfortunately, I believe that guns, if used properly, are less invasive of drivers than the always on units. A unit always on is like a cop 'looking' in your house to check if your doing something wrong, not as a handgun used to check the speed of a driver that already looks like he's going too fast. Detectors actually encourage the 'correct' use of the handgun, as leaving it on all the time just advertises it's presence. If the NJ law gets passed, it will just make more jammers appear, as well as skyrocket the sales of units like the Radio Shack detector that hides up front and puts a VERY SMALL and inconspicuous control box in the passenger compartment. A friend of mine mounted his in the ashtray of his Firebird. Close the ashtray cover and you couldn't find it. In a state such as NJ with borders to other states so close, any law such as this will be ineffective, as people will just cross over to buy units. Personally, I feel I have a LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed RIGHT to know what the police are doing by receiving radar. Finally, as a HAM radio operator, I feel I have even further RIGHTs to monitor X and K band transmissions. Flame all anyone wants, but direct it at *SSHOLES like the government in NJ, as far as I'm concerned, you won't change my views. END OF DISCUSSION! mikey at trsvax 55, it's not just a good idea, it S*CKS! In NJ, it's money!!!!!
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) (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? There is a flaw in this analogy. Radar guns only give the police one piece of information: your speed. (Ignore for now whether that information is accurate.) "Electronic surveillance devices" that monitor conversations gather quite a bit more information. (Don't get me wrong: I don't like radar detectors being outlawed either.) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 4251) UUCP: seismo!umcp-cs!chris CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris@maryland
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
mikey@trsvax (08/15/85)
First off, the fed does regulate receiving the airwaves. The Communications act of 1934 has specific areas that apply to divulging of information of things that can be received. Where most of the radar detector ordinances have stood is because they are not considered receivers, that are basically signal detectors. Even the superhet receivers are basically super field strength meters. Personally, I'll use a remote and hide the head to avoid trouble, even where the use is not regulated, but I won't take it out of my car. If I lived in PA near the NJ border, I'd just get me a lawyer and fight it. Most people give up instead of continuing the fight. It's not principle, people just figure that the $50 - $200 fine is not worth the court battle. I read that Washington D.C. had a detector law that stood for quite a few years because no one bothered to fight it. When someone finally did, it was struck down first round. I remember reading that the judges comment on the ruling was something about we can't afford to live in a country where a citizen does not have the right to know what the police department is doing. mikey at trsvax 55, it's not just a good idea, it S*CKS!! It's mostly revenue anyway.
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.
mikey@trsvax (08/22/85)
PA tried to take a case to court back about 1970 on a timestamp speeder on the northeast extension of the PA turnpike. It got thrown out of court because the state cound not produce any certification as to the accuracy of the timestamps, but also and mainly because there was no evidence that the clocks at the two tollbooths involved were the same. mikey at trsvax
chu@lasspvax.UUCP (Clare Chu) (08/22/85)
In article <55200195@trsvax> mikey@trsvax writes: > > > >Give ME a break!!!! NJ is probably the state I would name for the most >abuse of authority for revenue of any state I've lived in or traveled >through. I wouldn't trust a local police officer there unless there >were checks and balances, and a detector is my balance. > I wonder why NJ residents (and Maryland too) put up with this... > >If the NJ law gets passed, it will just make more jammers appear, as >well as skyrocket the sales of units like the Radio Shack detector that >hides up front and puts a VERY SMALL and inconspicuous control box >in the passenger compartment. A friend of mine mounted his in the >ashtray of his Firebird. Close the ashtray cover and you couldn't >find it. In a state such as NJ with borders to other states so close, >any law such as this will be ineffective, as people will just cross >over to buy units. > No kidding... >Personally, I feel I have a LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONALLY guaranteed RIGHT >to know what the police are doing by receiving radar. Finally, as a HAM >radio operator, I feel I have even further RIGHTs to monitor X and K band >transmissions. > I agree totally >Flame all anyone wants, but direct it at *SSHOLES like the government in >NJ, as far as I'm concerned, you won't change my views. > and the federal government for withholding federal aid to any state that doesn't abide to 55... >END OF DISCUSSION! > >mikey at trsvax > >55, it's not just a good idea, it S*CKS! >In NJ, it's money!!!!! 55, it's a BAD idea, it S*CKS! I wonder if the cops drive 55...
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.
ben@moncol.UUCP (Bennett Broder) (08/23/85)
>If the NJ law gets passed, it will just make more jammers appear, as >well as skyrocket the sales of units like the Radio Shack detector that >hides up front and puts a VERY SMALL and inconspicuous control box >in the passenger compartment. Unless they have radically modified their circuitry, a rash of Radio Shack detectors on the road will do more to stop people from using their radar detectors than a ban will. Radio Shack detectors spew out so much microwave energy that Whistler and CM have had to incorperate special filters specifically to avoid false alarms from these menaces. Even if Radio Shack has cleaned up its act, I would still not buy their detector. Any company irresponsible enough to flood the highways with such garbage is not deserving of my business. ben@moncol.uucp
pataky@gymble.UUCP (Bill Pataky) (08/24/85)
In article <55200198@trsvax> mikey@trsvax writes: > > > >First off, the fed does regulate receiving the airwaves. The Communications >act of 1934 has specific areas that apply to divulging of information of >things that can be received. Where most of the radar detector ordinances >have stood is because they are not considered receivers, that are basically >signal detectors. Even the superhet receivers are basically super field >strength meters. Personally, I'll use a remote and hide the head to avoid >trouble, even where the use is not regulated, but I won't take it out of >my car. If I lived in PA near the NJ border, I'd just get me a lawyer >and fight it. Most people give up instead of continuing the fight. It's >not principle, people just figure that the $50 - $200 fine is not worth the >court battle. I read that Washington D.C. had a detector law that stood >for quite a few years because no one bothered to fight it. When someone >finally did, it was struck down first round. I remember reading that the >judges comment on the ruling was something about we can't afford to live in >a country where a citizen does not have the right to know what the police >department is doing. > > >mikey at trsvax >55, it's not just a good idea, it S*CKS!! >It's mostly revenue anyway. The law in D.C. has NOT been struck down! As you enter the District on any of the major arteries large signs announce "Radar Detectors Illegal" A friend of mine learned the hard way. I was in the car when he was caught.
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
drb@druut.UUCP (BurrittDR) (08/27/85)
MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH MUNCH I have done quite a bit of cross country driving in my time and have found only one state to have its act together regarding the 55 MPH law. That state is Montana. Before 1974 Montana had no speed limit on its highways. The speed limit was whatever was considered safe for your car and current conditions. When the Feds stuck their big noses into the Speed limit jurisdiction, Montana was forced to enact the 55 MPH law or lose its funds. So this is how the law is enforced. All speeding tickets in the day time on an interstate in good conditions are $5.00 if you are going 85 (YES 85) or less. The speeding ticket is not a moving violation either, it is a conservation ticket (i.e., you are wasting a natural resource). Thus, your insurance company will not find out. I know the above is true because I used to live in Montana and have gotten several tickets (one was for 83mph) and all were $5.00. In fact, when you do get a ticket you can just pay the cop $5.00 and he will write you out a receipt on the spot. It is absurd to have 55 mph speed limit laws in states when you can drive for several hundred miles without seeing another car (take a hint Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, North/South Dakota). I think we should require all the people in the Congress and Senate to drive to their home states at least once a year. Maybe this would show them how stupid the 55 mph law is. Of course if they were forced to do this then they would probably write a law saying every politician needs a $80,000 car to perform this function and the car would be provided to them free of charge. They would also say they need another month of vacation (on top of the huge amounts they already get) to perform this. So as I think about it the above probably is not a good idea, just a nice thought. -- dave burritt The above is the personal opinions of the author and has nothing to do with his employer.
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
mike@enmasse.UUCP (Mike Schloss) (08/29/85)
> I wonder if the cops drive 55...
Only on single lane roads when there is someone in front of them
who won't speed with cops around.eli@cvl.UUCP (Eli Liang) (08/29/85)
> > I wonder if the cops drive 55... > > Only on single lane roads when there is someone in front of them > who won't speed with cops around. on the way to Ocean City one year, I saw a police car pass two cars in a row on a single lane road. The guy ahead obviously slowed down to a mere 5 miles over the speed limit since the cop was probably noticed behind... Cops are among the most impatient people... -eli -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eli Liang --- University of Maryland Computer Vision Lab, (301) 454-4526 ARPA: liang@cvl, liang@lemuria, eli@mit-mc, eli@mit-prep CSNET: liang@cvl UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!cvl!liang
mikey@trsvax (09/01/85)
> 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 Just get a copy of the Feb 1980 issue of Car and Driver. They had complete plans for a jammer. Before you do something, dig up a copy of the 'Hitchhikers Guide to Radar Jamming' that was posted about a year ago. I have personally seen a KR-11 Radar Gun that was modified to detect jammers and you can get your *ss burnt bad. mikey at trsvax
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