Text 15914, 274 rader
Skriven 2005-11-12 12:22:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 15809 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: looters in NO
=====================
 >>> It's even easier, and legal, to jam laser guns. There is also
 >>> a product on the market that is called 'laser veil'...it's a
 >>> liquid that you apply to reflective surfaces such as license plates

 MvdV>> Spraying on the license plate is illegal here.

 > That's too bad. Another freedom lost.

Freedom is not an absolute, it is in the eye of the beholder. I do not see it
as "freedom" if road pirates are allowed to make our roads unsafe.

 >>> I didn't care that I got caught for speeding. I paid the fine.
 >>> The best part was getting the goat of the CHP officer. Police are
 >>> trained to intimidate and he sure had a hard time doing that with me.

 MvdV>> I am puzzled with this attitude. You seem to consider the police
 MvdV>> your enemy. An enemy that has the be mislead by tricks like "laser
 MvdV>> veil" and radar jammers. An enemy that has to be defeated in a war
 MvdV>> of intimidation.

 > They're certainly not my friends. Their tactics are to
 > intimidate and lie. I hate both.

Strange. Are they not payed out of your tax money? It is not *you* the tax
payer that has the ultimate say in what the lawas are that the police have to
uphold?

 MvdV>> I see the police as people hired to do job. Hired by my
 MvdV>> government and paid from my tax money. These guys are
 MvdV>> not me enemy, they are working *for* me.

 > Then why do they screw you in the ass with hidden radar cameras?

The do not srew *me*. if they screw anyone it is those road pirates that have
no respect for our traffic regulations and that are a danger to law abiding
citizens. And the cops act against those because we, the people of The
Netherlands, made laws that give them that authority.

 MvdV>> I thought Hazard county was a Hollywood fantasy. Your words
 MvdV>> seem to indicate different.

 > Even though the movie "Smokey and the Bandit" portrays law
 > enforcement as a funny joke, it's not far from the truth showing
 > how far a LEO will go.

Sad really. And you claim to live in a free country? Seems to me you are close
to a police state.

 >>> It will detect it if the radar signal bounces off of any object
 >>> in the front of the building. You know, the multipath signal of VHF
 >>> and up.

 MvdV>> But the reflected signal will be 20 to 40 dB weaker than the direct
 MvdV>> signal. That means you have to get a lot closer to detect it.

 > That'd depend on the sensitivity of the detectors front end.

No, it doesn't. The difference in signal level depends on a lot of things, but
the sensitivity of the receiver is NOT one of them.

 >>> And why wouldn't I know they're there, having lived there for
 >>> some years like you have?

 MvdV>> They keep adding new ones all the time. There are thousands of
 MvdV>> them. I know of about a dozen in my direct viscinity. Further out
 MvdV>> there are too many too keep track.

 > Seems like it's getting closer to '1984' than you realize.

That is not how I see it. Freedom is in the eye of the beholder. I feel safer
with the road pirates off the road.

 >>> Sure, a visitor might get caught there, but they'd only get
 >>> caught once.

 MvdV>> And then they get caught again at the next intersection...

 > ????

That is where the next speed traop may be.

 MvdV>>>> Here you see a picture of one of those speed traps.
 MvdV>>>> http://flits.bnet.be/questDetails.jsp?id=18

 >>> Yes, they look just like the red light cameras that we have here.

 MvdV>> The one in the picture IS a red light camera.

 > Pretty observant, aren't I.

Not really, the accompanying text mentions it.

 >>> Depending on the sensitivity of the detector, it would pick up
 >>> a signal from backscatter.

 MvdV>> The signal must be detectable. After all that is how the thing
 MvdV>> works. But the signal is a lot weaker than the direct signal, so
 MvdV>> you have to be real close. Most likely too close to be of any use.

 > As long as I'm not yet in the camera's range, I'll be just fine.

You can't unless you have the bionic man's reaction. You have less than a
second.

 >>> There is also polarizing paint for the plate. Not detectable
 >>> by the naked eye from 2m away.

 MvdV>> If it has any effect, it must be detectable. Simply look at it
 MvdV>> through  the "eyes of the camera" that it is supposed to defeat.

 > And that is where the camera would be found faulty. It isn't
 > able to distinguish anything on the plate.

If the cop makes a "picture" of the plate with a cmarea similar to the ones
used in the speed traps, he will see that - contrary to expectation - the
numbers on the plate are not redable on the picture. That will be the give away
for tampering.

 >>> We're safe from search and seizure in our houses and papers.
 >>> The USSC also included cars.

 MvdV>> Measuring the speed of a car is not searching it.

 > It has been argued in a court of law that it is an invasion of
 > privacy, which is protected by the USC..

<shrug> The USC is not in force here. We see it different.

 >>> My license was suspended once when I was 16 for having too
 >>> many points deducted due to too many moving violations. Since
 >>> I was a minor, the points system was even harsher than it was for
 >>> adults.

 MvdV>> My licence was never suspended though I have been caught a couple
 MvdV>> of time on speeding in my younger years.

 > I had three tickets within a 3 month period.

That would qualify you as a road pirate here.

 MvdV>> Same here. The insurance companies however do not have access to
 MvdV>> police records. If you are in an accident and do not claim the
 MvdV>> damage from the insurance, it does not go in their records and so
 MvdV>> it has no effect on the no-claim discount.

 > If you are in an accident, the other driver's insurance
 > company will notify yours. That's how they work.

Not if the other driver does not report it either. It there are no wounded, it
is perfectly lkegal to settle the matter in private.

 >>> When I turned 25, my insurance premiums were cut in half, as I
 >>> became a new member of a different age group.

 MvdV>> I don't recall the details that far back. I know that I am in the
 MvdV>> highest discount group as I have not been in an accident for over
 MvdV>> ten years.

 > They only go back three years here. My wreck of 2001 is now
 > off the record.

Your 2001 wreck? You don't sound like a very safe driver to me...

 MvdV>> with it most of the time. Now the roads are so crowded that
 MvdV>> excessive speeding is irresponsible if not impossible. Can't speed
 MvdV>> in a traffic jam...

 > Wanna bet? I've seen youngsters jump from lane to lane, cutting
 > people off and causing accidents behind them in traffic jams.

Not possible in the traffic jams they have here. In such a jams cars are bumper
to bumper at walking speed or are at a complete stop. One can not "jump form
lne to lane", there is simply no room to go anywhere but go with the flow.

 > I simply try to avoid them if it's at all possible.

Unfortunately that is not always possible here. :-(

 MvdV>> Plus that the methods of detection have improved to the point that
 MvdV>> there is no escape. The latest system is "traject controle".
 MvdV>> Camaras at checkpoint A record you time of passing and then when
 MvdV>> you pass checkpoint B five kilometres further down the road you are
 MvdV>> clocked again. Arrive their too early and you get the ticket in the
 MvdV>> mail.

 > It is '1984'....

it is the twenty first century. We ca no longer afford tho let people drive
like cowboys in the Wild West.

 MvdV>> Yes, forged plates can defeat that system, but the penalty
 MvdV>> for forgery multiplied by the chance of detection is
 MvdV>> substantially higher than the fine for speeding. And all that
 MvdV>> just to get there a few minutes earlier? No percentage in it.

 > That's true. My dad used to say to those passing him; "Hurry
 > up and wait."

Over here with the crowded roads and short distances, speeding does not pay
off. Not for a privrate indivual. Dor trucks that are subject to a general
speed limit of 80 kph it is another matter....

 >>> I honestly don't remember what the device is. It's a diode
 >>> device activated by RF

 MvdV>> And powered by the RF. Not a passive device...

 > It is passive as long as there's no RF present. RF at the
 > frequency used by radar.

So when there  is RF present, it stops being a passive device.

 >>> and all I can tell you at the moment is that I first found it
 >>> in a HAM magazine project written back in the 80s.

 MvdV>> I have seen similar things. Not for radar jamming but for jamming
 MvdV>> ham repeaters. I collected half a dozen when I was the guardian of
 MvdV>> the local 2 meter repeater....

 > Those are usually run on battery power.

Usually yes. The battery powered jammers have the "disadvantage" that soonet or
later the battery runs out. The RF powered devices just go on and on and on
until someone finds it.

 > I've planted and found a few of those in my time too.

Now why does that not surprise me...

 >>> Any radar jammer here has to be type accepted and licensed by
 >>> the FCC. It's not illegal to have one,

 MvdV>> It is over here. It is also illegal to sell them.

 > Hmmm. Another good black market item for my list.

Don't count on getting rich quickly here...

 >>> but then, from the reports I've read, none of them work anyway.
 >>> However, it's not illegal to build and operate a
 >>> passive device,

 MvdV>> An oscillator powered by the rectified signal of another
 MvdV>> transmitter is not considered a passive device here. It is in the
 MvdV>> same class as a transmitter powered by a solar cell.

 > Too bad. More 1984...

Not at all. It is keeping the air waves clean from pirates.

 >>>>> It draws no current, nor is it electrified until
 >>>>> it sees that radar signal.

 MvdV>>>> Aha, sso when in operation it *does* draw current.

 >>> It can't draw current from a source it doesn't have.

 MvdV>> The source of power is the radar signal.

 > Which makes it passive until it receives that signal. IE; one
 > powered by an RF signal isn't detectable without that signal.

Detectability has nothing to do with legality.

And of course if these things were to become common, someone would come up with
a detector that triggers that "passive" device with an RF signal.

As with the "laser veil" spray, if it is effective, it can be detected by
recreating the conditions under which the effect occurs.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)