Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!ron
From: ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Legislation
Message-ID: <1265@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 16:57:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1265
Posted: Thu Sep  5 16:57:09 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 06:03:50 EDT
References: <>, <214@proper.UUCP> <200@pyuxii.UUCP> <181@batman.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 12
Xref: watmath net.auto:8050 net.legal:2281

> > 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.