[mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Aaron Kulkis]

Raymond McLaughlin wrote:
> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>> If there's not a reason for this, then why doe the FCC *DEMAND*
>> that Class C consumer electronics accept interference causing
>> unwanted operation?
> 
> You seem to be interpreting the word "accept" differently than I would.
> I interpret it to mean that the user of the Class C device has no
> recourse if any unwanted operation occurs as a result of EM
> interference.

That's correct.  And why does the FCC *DEMAND* that a Class C
device *not* be protected from interference resulting in
unwanted operation.

Hint: civil disturbance.

 > I don't read it to mean that the device must be made
> susceptible to such unwanted operation.

That and more.

> 
> 
>> Basically, the designation specifically PROHIBITS (under
>> penalty of law) protecting the device from RFI.
> 
> I doubt this is a correct interpretation. It would amount to depriving
> me of the use of my own property without due process.

If you want an RFI-proof device, then you don't purchase
a Class-C consumer electronic device.

And the government (unfortunately) has usurped a lot of
unconstitutional authority starting in the 1930's.