[Uram-rejections] fobbed off ....

Mon Oct 3 12:04:55 BST 2016

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

 Supporting illegal activity

The post that you submitted to uk.radio.amateur.moderated has been rejected by a
moderator. 

This appears to the moderator to be off-topic for uk.radio.amateur.moderated
or has insufficient material related to amateur radio.

The group charter and moderation policy can be found at
  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/uram/
Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup
  uk.net.news.moderation

============================================ Full text of your message follows
> From webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk Mon Oct 03 09:25:26 2016
> Return-path: <webstump at chiark.greenend.org.uk>
> Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk
> X-Envelope-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Forwarding-To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> Delivered-To: forwarding-uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at example.com
> To: uk-radio-amateur-moderated at usenet.org.uk
> From: "Jimbo at the trailer park ..." <james.stewart497 at ntlworld.com>
> Newsgroups: uk.radio.amateur.moderated
> Subject: Re: fobbed off ....
> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 09:25:23 +0100
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Message-ID: <nst4kv$c5r$1 at dont-email.me>
> References: <nsr0h4$6v7$2 at dont-email.me> <1mui8ix.1fp2pqn1t7a73yN%roger at hayter.org> <nsrku9$dlo$1 at dont-email.me> <1muidej.zt9sjt84766yN%roger at hayter.org> <nst295$4lp$1 at dont-email.me>
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
> X-Priority: 3
> X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18txjHvh76QCAWWTXBaT7L4YzkobIzqwGk=
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZIWkfB9LMnGgOYaVKWtpqz4nMfY=
> X-Gradwell-Message-ID: 30586289
> X-Gradwell-MongoId: 57f215f0.1548e-28fc-4
> X-Gradwell-Forwarding-Rule: 1748292
> X-Gradwell-Edge-Server: inbound-edge-4.mail.thdo.gradwell.net
> 
> 
> "Brian Reay" <no.sp at m.com> wrote in message 
> news:nst295$4lp$1 at dont-email.me...
> > Roger Hayter <roger at hayter.org> wrote:
> >> mm0fmf <none at invalid.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 02/10/2016 18:32, Roger Hayter wrote:
> >>>> Jimbo at the trailer park ... <james.stewart497 at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> is it illegal jam an unprotected key fob with a 70cm signal?.....
> >>>>
> >>>> It may well be illegal to do it deliberately, though I am not sure what
> >>>> the offence would be.  But it may a breach of licence conditions  to
> >>>> transmit where you know, or should know, that it is likely to happen.
> >>>> On the other hand you might claim that it is up to users of the
> >>>> unprotected ISM frequencies to design and use their equipment in such a
> >>>> way that legitimate spectrum use does not interfere with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am interested to know what experts in the licence conditions think on
> >>>> this point.
> >>>>
> >>>> It may be unwise to do this in a busy urban carpark in such a way that
> >>>> you can easily be spotted as the culprit.  Some people may have heard 
> >>>> ot
> >>>> the problem, see the handheld radio, and leap to the obvious 
> >>>> conclusion.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Probably 7(3), 7(6), 5(1)(b) would apply. Asking in public if you can
> >>> deliberately cause problems would remove any chance of pleading it was
> >>> accidental should anyone do anything about it. IANAL however.
> >>
> >> No doubt Brian Howie's WTA clause would apply if it were done
> >> deliberately.   I am not sure 7(3) or 7(6) would be breached by
> >> inadvertent interference as firstly the problem generally arises from
> >> the fob system's sensitivity to large signals outside its nominal
> >> reception band, including perfectly good 70cm signals,  and secondly I
> >> am not sure that ISM equipment has any legal protection against 'normal'
> >> out of band signals, or even in band ones.  Even if they were breached,
> >> does breaching them in itself amount to an offence?  The clause Brian
> >> quoted would seem only to apply to deliberate use.  And 5(1) merely
> >> gives  an official the right to tell you to stop.  It is a fair bet (and
> >> no doubt someone could confirm from the WTA) that it would be an offence
> >> to ignore a 5(1) instruction, if only because it could bring you under
> >> the "deliberate interference" offence, once you were warned.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Why do you think there is any requirement to be warned?
> >
> > If you are aware your activity is causing interference and you 
> > deliberately
> > continue, especially with the intention to cause a problem ie in this case
> > not engaged in a QSO, not giving people a chance to enter their vehicles
> > etc., you are displaying intent to commit the offence.
> >
> >
> > In essence, it is no different to jamming a repeater or one of the
> > frequencies allocated to space comms during an orbital pass.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> jamming a repeater in the 80's was seen by most right minded people as a 
> public service as they were poluted by professionals talking shop and truck 
> drivers passing container numbers...... 
> 
> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX8jtXAAoJEJ0q8Kb5p+MeeFAH+QHfesZzijRXG4d6BYHJLhHz
6KfNGzTYkFNJgbLKMIGauJA05FHxBRpdDpNh85P42UQHt+y0blnRKqobNb4X1MLp
lio0S70XMV85HA0JeI/ltZAbkXnfa84cHVGsWgj1Gh+smHnK17BhLFX9W3Bd9q1o
g0iWBOTFacQEHdzhch1gz7b6GJA5IJYf5pGaop5L6hLnv1swOUfe2lKdJ/FThG7e
/DyDPtBQAg5bFfotKse3cwaZVA78ELNMly3IeM9dhYfJtwM9X4aYvAKf7L6n8VS9
vnZrmB5entRrQVTjuUgVB+bEMLe8SuDDSRDPn6AWxkybjYjEs357mOgRIEBq9zA=
=J/yt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----