Whether To Design Open Source Public Records Equipment

[Punk-Stasi 2.0]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2020 16:05:00 -0400
Karl <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:


> > > a call to 911.
> >
> >         ....call to what?
> >
> 
> Another error on my part.  Are you in Russia? 

	no, I'm in argentina. I think the local nazi scum copied the americunt scum and now you can 'call 911' here as well, like in hollywood!


> 911 is an emergency dispatch number in USA.  It works on every phone and immediately calls a local  dispatcher who sees your location and sends police, 

	yeah, so, the anti-police-surveillance device automatically calls...the police?


> medical, and fire
> authorities while talking with you.  Jim mentioned this in his original
> proposal.  

	yeah, further proof that the idea makes little sense.


> 
> >         It would be better to point something like an IR laser at the
> > camera and destroy the sensor. Question is, how do to that without getting
> > caught?
> >
> 
> Ask someone already targeted to do it for you?

	Ha. That doesn't sound like a solution. We are all already targeted by 'mass surveillance'. So the question remains, how to destroy cameras without being 'surveilled'.


> 
>         What about a microwave beam? Could that fry any unshielded
> > electronic device?
> >
> 
> I'm not prepared for you to ask that; it reminds me of helping people learn
> possibly-illegal things and getting in trouble for it.  


	yeah, that's antother problem. Discussing this in public only gives more information to the enemy. But wait, we're using the arpanet, and the whole point of the arpanet is collecting this kind of information...

> The word "any" got me all confused.  Do you mean for cameras?  

	any spying device

> Do you mean microwave ovens or
> microwave signals over 300mhz?  The pixel clocks were under 25mhz, but cpus
> obviously go that high.


	I was hinting at the fact that shorter wavelenghts are easier to focus and direct against whatever you're trying to interfere with.


> 
> Maybe I should think more about why you say the things you say, to hold a
> better role in a conversation.
> 
> >