Xref: utzoo sci.electronics:2266 rec.ham-radio:4033 rec.autos:7293
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU!ralphw
From: ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics,rec.ham-radio,rec.autos
Subject: Beating Robocop
Message-ID: <901@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: 19 Feb 88 02:34:52 GMT
References: <2588@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 33

Does 5th amendment protection apply in cases like this?  It would seem that if
your countermeasures are serious enough ('interfering with a police officer')
to warrant a criminal suit rather than a civil one ('speeding'), then you
might legitimately be able to take the 5th, and

I'm suprised that no one has suggested spoofing the radar.  I can understand
the admirable restraint of the rec.ham-radio community, since proposing 
something that would violate FCC regs.

Making the license plate 'invisible' to the camera is a neat hack.
The original post didn't make clear whether the photo takes a picture of the
front of the car or the back.  In some states (PA & WVA), front plates are not
required, and people tend to buy 'bumper-sticker' style plates for their cars.
In PA, this is a popular one:  

Normal rear plate		'hack' front plate
+-----------------------+	+-----------------------+
|You've got a friend in	|	|You've got a friend in	|	
|                       |	|                       |	
|   XXX XXX		|	|     JESUS		|		
|			|	|			|	
| T   Pennsylvania	|	|     Pennsylvania	|		
+----------------------+-	+----------------------+-	

Anyway, I recall a story about a guy with 'NONE' on a vanity plate, and
he ended up with a lot of extra parking tickets.  I see the same thing
happening here, except with more amusing results.

-- 
					- Ralph W. Hyre, Jr.

Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu    Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK}
Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA