| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 22.08.03 19:02l 172 Lines 7500 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1806-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Aug 19, 4/5
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RGB<DB0MRW<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0EA<DB0RES<ON0AR<WB0TAX<N1UAN<
ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 030821/1156Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:6907 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:1806-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Subject: Re: Big brother in everyday life, and it's us!
From: David VanHorn <dvanhorn@cedar.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:15:46 -0500
X-Message-Number: 18
At 06:51 PM 8/19/2003 -0400, Mike Yetsko wrote:
>>Yes it's illegal to broadcast false position reports on RF. See the part
>>about "false and deceptive signals". If the intent is to conceal or
>deceive,
>>then it's illegal.
>
>In actual fact, the person did NOT transmit false data. He just fed it to
>the internet 'as if' it came from his tracker, via APRS. In actual fact,
>I suspect (I can't 'prove' anything) that he just 'played the route' from
>his PC and actually had his tracker in the vehicle off while he went
>somewhere else.
Do what you like in that regard on the net, but as I said, if it goes on
RF, it's in violation.
>Now, before someone says he was trying to deceive someone.
>Consider the 'rest of the story'. Possessions were contested, and
>he was not home, the house could be 'raided' and items taken. Now,
>doesn't that justify what he did? Don't be so quick to judge!
>
>But, even if he DID transmit the signal, he's tranmitting a 'valid track
>stream of data'. He could claim it was just test data, or even an old
>track (maybe it was?) transmitted as a test.
The intent was to deceive.
>>If you don't want anyone to know where you are, or how fast you're
>>driving, then TURN THE BEACON OFF.
>>
>>If you're worried about getting busted for speeding (incredibly unlikely
>>that a judge would admit a hobby toy's output as evidence) then TRY
>>DRIVING AT OR UNDER THE POSTED LIMIT.
>
>While our 'toy' data would not be sufficient to convict someone on a
>criminal offense by itself, it could make the difference as supporting
>evidence in a criminal case. And before you say 'DRIVE LEGAL',
>just consider how perfect you are in your driving habits.
Never made any claim to be perfect.
I just make a conscious effort to comply with the law.
I made an agreement to do that when I applied for my licence.
Just like I did with my ham licence.
>One night I was in a snowstorm.
>Came to an intersection. Put my left turnsignal on. Light went green.
>The oncoming car flashed for me to go. I turned left. Promptly got
>pulled over. "No left turn". Sign was obscured by snow and a
>holiday wreath... And the vehicle that motioned me to 'go ahead'
>first was the cop. Had to fight that...
In hawaii, they have a reg that if a sign is obscured (usually not by snow)
then it's not in force. Also, you were following the instructions of law
enforcement, which overrule signage.
>>This last one is somewhat of a sore point for me.
>>I sometimes think that illiteracy must be a much larger problem than I
>>thought it was.
>>The sign doesn't say "65 unless everybody else is going faster".
>
>Ah, bull, that's totally not applicable to the discussion, I'm sorry.
If you're making a conscious choice to break the law, then I don't see why
it should come as a surprise that you'll get busted eventually.
Iffen it hurts when you do that, then DONT DO THAT!
Some folks learn slow.
>I'm sorry, but your example just prove my case! Why does the
>'revenue enhancement' situation make any difference?
Because you don't even have to be speeding to be ticketed for it.
In my case, it was physically impossible for him to have acquired me as a
target, at the point where he said he did. It was also impossible for him
to pick out which vehicle out of the five lanes of approaching traffic, he
was reading. (10Ghz doppler at about 3/4 mile range) Long story, mostly
boring, unless it was you getting tagged for something you weren't doing,
and loosing money you desperately couldn't afford to loose. At the end of
that story, is the part where I got arrested for contempt of court, of
which I am somewhat proud.
>By the way, I was in a 3 piece suit, had a 357Magnum under my
>coat that ended up not being very well concealed (the suit was a
>bit too tight under the arms...) and in fact got a 'verbal' for the
>lane change, and nothing else, once the facts were all sorted out.
I can't make heads or tails of this..
>In Mass, the town of Natick has a POLICY of ticketing at 1MPH over.
Well, the law does say "at or below", but I normally expect a wider
tolerance for vehicle speedometer error. I've seen 5 Mph off, and some
vehicles will read just about DOUBLE their actual speed on a cold day.
>NO ONE is perfect. And we risk 'self incrimination' by our toys
>when we show our imperfection. I'm not talking about robbing a
>liquor store. I'm talking about the innocent issues that can develop
>and then we suddenly get nail well beyond what's expected.
If you don't want anyone to know where, or how fast you're driving, then
turn off the beacon. After all, it's your choice wether to advertise your
bad driving habits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Big brother in everyday life, and it's us!
From: John Becker <w0jab@big-river.net>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:20:41 -0500
X-Message-Number: 19
In 1979 while working as a radio technician for the St. Louis Police
department we had a tracking system by the Boeing Company called "FLAIR"
. That worked petty darn good for back then. Anyway the cops said about the
very same thing till it saved some ones behind more then once. Most cases
was a crash at the downtown blind intersections .....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Big brother in everyday life, and it's us!
From: Adi Linden <adil@adis.on.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:38:26 -0500 (CDT)
X-Message-Number: 20
>Yes, there is always a vocal minority that decries any advance in technology
>that impacts privacy, but look at the net advantages these innovations have
>given us. Yes, government and business has never known more about us, but we
>have never been healthier or safer. Both trends are sure to continue, because I
>am convinced there is a link between them.
My biggest concern about technological advances is how well these
technologies are understood by our population at large. That includes
police officers, judges, jurors, etc. There are many new things in our
world today that are not well understood by anyone but the people
producing them. Having judges and juries misinterpret or misunderstand
APRS data presented as evidence wouldn't be a good thing.
Adi
--
Adi Linden | va3adi | va3adi@adis.ca | http://adis.ca
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
IRLP Node 2590 in Sioux Lookout, Ontario
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: Big brother in everydath Dakota, Janklow has
surrendered just about any privacy rights a "normal" person could
expect. In one of his previous vehicular speeding incidents, he had TWO
REPORTERS in the back seat of his SUV. If you are going to be a public
official who likes to speed and don't want people to know about it, you
certainly don't put two reporters in the back of you vehicle and then drive
100 MPH.
When I first posted this to the SIG, I only did so because telematics and
GPS mapping were involved. This is not an issue or forum to vent about
corrupt police or your dislike of traffic laws or your "right" to privacy
when driving on a public road.
73,
Mark
KC7BXS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
