[mdlug] OT - IR jamming

[Aaron Kulkis]

Brian Hurley wrote:
> On Monday 18 February 2008, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>> Brian Hurley wrote:
>>> If FCC lables freak you out, watch out for the "DO NOT REMOVE UNDER
>>> PENALTY OF LAW" lables on your mattress and pillows.
>> That only applies to sellers, not consumers.
>> If you don't believe me... READ IT.
> 
> My previous response to this was a bit glib. 
> 
> A more serious would be that yes I've read it. Perhaps you're too young to 
> rmember when it didn't have the line "...EXCEPT BY CONSUMERS". The reason 
> that was added was to allay just the sort of paranoia we're seeing on this 
> list about the FCC label. 


Apples and Oranges.

The Mattress/Pillow label thing was a mistake of ommission.

The statement that a device *MUST* accept interference did
not come about by forgetting to exclude it.  It's an act
of commission...which means someone TOOK AN ACTION to include
that specification within federal law.

No government would demand that your electronics be susceptible
to interference unless the want to reserve the power to use
that weakness.

Here's an example.

When I was in Baghdad, we had equipment which takes practical
advantage of these sorts of mandated weakness in electronic
devices (these same requirements are in place in practically
all countries where modern electronic devices are manufactured),
so the same thing applies to electronics in Iraq as what you
buy here in the States.

When we arrived in theater, the commander of the company
which we were replacing showed us several videos... some
taken off Al-Queda web sites showing us how NOT to react
to IED attacks; the deadly results of driving too fast
in top-heavy vehicles on bad roads (one made by the
turret gunner who ended up being decapitated in the
roll-over accident which occurred a couple minutes
into the video which started as they left the base)...
the last one showed some idiot trying to blow up a patrol...
and he's holding his video camera while trying to trigger
an attack with a Motorola FRS (Family Radio Service)
type radio (the little "walkie-talkie" type things,
often with optional "security channels" that were
introduced about 8 years ago.

Suffice it to say that not only did he fail to trigger
his explosive device, but one of the turret gunners
spotted this man in field in the middle of nowhere,
with a video camera and a radio...which is pretty much
the signature of an IED trigger man.  So, in the
video, the camera suddenly goes from pointing at the
passing humvees to pointing up at the sky....it's like
that for about 2-minutes...until you see the camera
panning around to half a squad of American soldiers,
before aiming down to show the man, Motorola radio
still in his hand, with the incredible trauma of
having been hit in the chest with a .50 caliber bullet.

Does this now clarify for you WHY governments insist
that consumer-grade devices be vulnerable to any
interference which causes "undesired operation"



There's other things, but I can't talk about them, at
least not for a few decades.

> 
> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22DO+NOT+REMOVE+UNDER%0A+PENALTY+OF+LAW%22
>