Anders Sandberg wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" <email@example.com> writes:
> > QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > In a message dated 4/20/2000 5:21:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > >
> > > > Mike's Special Privacy Enforcing Zapper...
> > >
> > > A super powerful room-clearing invisible vapor?
> > > (sorry)
> > Ha no. Just a miniaturized EMP/ECM device.
> Which will of course zap nice electronics too. Why not instead use a
> laser to blind the sensors? Maybe connected to a steering system
> scanning for lens antireflex and pumping up the amplitude when
> pointing in the right direction. A kind of privacy version of the
> eye-popper laser discussed earlier as a non-lethal weapon (!).
Thats a possibility, but you'd also have to have multiple laser heads to
scan for multiple cameras as well. The question of why you want to use
the device and what sort of a device it is, is whether you are doing it
to actively discourage the actual use of the system by making it
expensive for the powers that be to keep replacing cameras you are
blowing out, or whether you merely wish to slip through the net
unidentified. The first holds out the hope that your acts of civil
insurgency will make the powers decide its not worthwhile to have the
system, while the second surrenders hope and is merely concerned with
surviving under such an oppressive environment.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:42 MDT