woodworm
Joined: 05 Mar 2007 Posts: 11 Location: oxfordshire, england
|
Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: Isn't it technically terrorism under the patriot act? |
|
|
During the course of my career I had several interesting jobs, one of which required me to read the terms of the PATRIOT act and various anti terror acts round the world.
Under my reading of the relevant laws, posession of a device which transmits signals which is used to interfere with any electronic device in a public area could (if you were an evil minded officious little sod with a penchant for arresting people) be considered an act of terrorism (oh yes electronic interference counts too - it's the same if you hack networks).
It'd be an interesting test case and you'd really have to annoy the wrong people to ever have this problem but I was just wondering if the manufacturers had taken out insurance against this.
Say for example there was a mass outbreak of turning off the TVs at Heathrow airport, so no-one could get info, that becomes a security event because passengers can't move etc.
Am not advocating NOT using them (although I think my tack of 'would you mind awfully turning that off, I'd really like to be able to concentrate on what you are saying' works just as well in most places - people find someone else focusing on them has rare value these days )
Thoughts anyone?
Rachel _________________ 'You know, we could switch off and just *talk*' |
|