Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houem.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!houem!hgp
From: hgp@houem.UUCP (#H.PAGE)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.legal
Subject: Re: Radar Detector Legislation
Message-ID: <373@houem.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Sep-85 19:40:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: houem.373
Posted: Fri Sep  6 19:40:49 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Sep-85 06:35:02 EDT
References: <>, <214@proper.UUCP> <200@pyuxii.UUCP> <181@batman.UUCP>, <1265@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 23
Xref: watmath net.auto:8059 net.legal:2285

> > > 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