home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!computer-privacy-request
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 12:55:15 GMT
- From: Rob deFriesse <rj@cadre.com>
- Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy
- Subject: Re: Radar Detector Prohibitions
- Reply-To: rj@cadre.com
- Message-ID: <comp-privacy1.116.1@pica.army.mil>
- Organization: Cadre Technologies Inc.
- Sender: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
- Approved: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
- X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy@pica.army.mil
- X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request@pica.army.mil
- X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 1, Issue 116, Message 1 of 11
- Lines: 29
-
- : Not that this is a privacy issue, but I thought that banning radar
- : detectors was technically a violation of federal law. I think
- : there is a federal law on the books, dating back from the '30's,
- : which affirms citizens' rights to receive signals broadcast anywhere
- : in the electromagnetic spectrum.
-
- While it is illegal to ban any reciever, the law also states that it
- is illegal to use a reciever in the commision of a crime. This is
- how they justify the prohibition of radar dectectors.
-
- The problem I have with this is that a radar detector prohibition
- assumes that a crime has or will be commited even though there
- may be no proof of the crime. The counter argument is that a radar
- detector is good for only one thing: to facilitate the violation
- of speed limits. This is not good enough. The law is clear.
- Receivers are always legal unless used to commit a crime. If
- there is no proof of a crime, there is no crime.
-
- --
- The software engineer's credo: Eschew Obfuscation
-
- Rob deFriesse Mail: rj@ri.cadre.com
- Cadre Technologies Inc. Phone: (401) 351-5950
- 222 Richmond St. Fax: (401) 351-7380
- Providence, RI 02903
-
- I don't speak for my employer.
-
-