Coming to a neighborhood near you

DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a police
state.

The topic is interference with radio services.

In practice, however, the citizens seem to turn a blind eye to the practice
of the government violating its own laws. See Gitmo.

Gitmo has nothing to do with radio services.

Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules, allocations,
etc. or there would be chaos.

But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are off.


This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that "National
Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I* as a citizen
were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the cops would laugh at
me all to way to the jail g

There is no FCC rule against killing someone.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message
...
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
police
state.

The topic is interference with radio services.

*And* the legality thereof.
Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
service.
Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
service.

Your statement: The US government is not bound by this [the law that states
that it is illegal to cause interference].

OK. Either the law was written to give tacit government approval to cause
interference, or the US government can violate its own laws. I do not know
the exact law regarding interefernce, and don't know whether or not the law
explicity grants the rights of interference to the government, I presumed
case B.


In practice, however, the citizens seem to turn a blind eye to the
practice
of the government violating its own laws. See Gitmo.

Gitmo has nothing to do with radio services.

But it has EVERYTHING to do with the government's violating its own laws.
Gitmo was used as an example of our blind eye in the name of "National
Security." My point is that the government starts small. (Violating laws
that noone really cares/knows about). But by doing so, the citizens of the
country are slowly giving up liberties. It sets a dangerous precedent and
allows the country to follow a VERY slippery slope.


Generally, all governmental organizations follow FCC rules,
allocations,
etc. or there would be chaos.

But, if the magic words "National Security" are invoked, all bets are
off.


This, IMHO, is bull****. Not your statement, but the fact that "National
Security" can call off the rule of law unilaterally. If *I* as a citizen
were to kill someone and claim "National Security," the cops would laugh
at
me all to way to the jail g

There is no FCC rule against killing someone.

What does it matter? You've stated that there are magic words (namely:
National Security) that cause all bets to be off. Replace "kill someone"
with "interfere with radio services" if it makes you happy.

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:09:12 -0400, DougS wrote:

Either the law was written to give tacit government approval to cause
interference, or the US government can violate its own laws. I do not
know the exact law regarding interefernce, and don't know whether or not
the law explicity grants the rights of interference to the government, I
presumed case B.


In fact, given the history of GPS, I'm not be particularly surprised to
find it legal for the US to degrade the signal, one way or another, in
times of National Emergency. It's not that long since it was degraded -
for civilian use - as a matter of course.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 16:09:12 -0400, DougS wrote:

Either the law was written to give tacit government approval to cause
interference, or the US government can violate its own laws. I do
not know the exact law regarding interefernce, and don't know
whether or not the law explicity grants the rights of interference
to the government, I presumed case B.


In fact, given the history of GPS, I'm not be particularly surprised
to find it legal for the US to degrade the signal, one way or
another, in times of National Emergency. It's not that long since it
was degraded - for civilian use - as a matter of course.

- Andrew

GPS is owned by the DOD. It is basicly a weapons system. They have always
retained the right to degrade the signal or even turn it off. This isn't
new.

DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
police
state.

The topic is interference with radio services.

*And* the legality thereof.
Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
service.
Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
service.

The FCC doesn't write laws.

The FCC writes regulations.

The Congress writes laws.

I doubt you understand the difference and I have no desire to either
educate you or get into a long drawn out discussion on something not
at all related to piloting based on your dislike for the current
crop of government officials, all of which will change with the next
election anyway.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 22, 6:04 pm, wrote:
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
police
state.

The topic is interference with radio services.
*And* the legality thereof.
Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
service.
Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
service.

The FCC doesn't write laws.

The FCC writes regulations.

The Congress writes laws.

I doubt you understand the difference and I have no desire to either
educate you or get into a long drawn out discussion on something not
at all related to piloting based on your dislike for the current
crop of government officials, all of which will change with the next
election anyway.


That's a bull**** strawman argument, and you know it. The regulations
(written by FAA or FCC or other executive branch and codified in the
CFR) have the force of law in the United States. The authority of an
executive agency to establish the regulations is granted by the US
Code. (Hint: the FAA's authority is established in 49 USC). Why do
you think there are exceptions written into TFRs for military
aircraft? If you don't think the CFR applies to government entities,
then those exceptions wouldn't be required, would they?

The penalities for violating the regulations are civil in nature,
however they are peanalties nonetheless, and are spelled out in 49 USC
463. Included in that section is the authority granted the FAA to
impose penalties for violation of its regulations. I am sure that
other agencies (including the FCC) have been granted similar powers
through the USC. Otherwise, I could hop into Travolta's 707 and fly
around willy-nilly in U.S. airspace while blocking radio signals
without any fear of any repurcussions. Those regulations are just
regulations and not law after all.

Regardless of what you may think about the applicability of a
government's ability to circumvent its own laws/regulations, it can be
a relevant point for all those who are bound by those regulations (ie
pilots).

BTW, your conclusion that I dislike the current crop of government
officials is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion of whether
or not the selective (or unselective for that matter) suspension of a
regulation or law by a government is "right." That is beside your
presumption that it (the government's disregard for its own laws) will
change with the next election is flawed to say the least.

Doug Semler wrote:
On Jul 22, 6:04 pm, wrote:
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
police
state.

The topic is interference with radio services.
*And* the legality thereof.
Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
service.
Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
service.

The FCC doesn't write laws.

The FCC writes regulations.

The Congress writes laws.

I doubt you understand the difference and I have no desire to either
educate you or get into a long drawn out discussion on something not
at all related to piloting based on your dislike for the current
crop of government officials, all of which will change with the next
election anyway.


That's a bull**** strawman argument, and you know it. The regulations
(written by FAA or FCC or other executive branch and codified in the
CFR) have the force of law in the United States. The authority of an
executive agency to establish the regulations is granted by the US
Code. (Hint: the FAA's authority is established in 49 USC). Why do
you think there are exceptions written into TFRs for military
aircraft? If you don't think the CFR applies to government entities,
then those exceptions wouldn't be required, would they?

The Federal Government must obey the Constitution and those laws
enacted by Congress that say so.

Does any Federal organization file a tax return?

Will the FAA ramp check a USAF F-16 pilot to see he has all his
documentation?

Will the FCC bust the Army because none of their field radios has
a station license?

Will the DOT bust a Marine convoy because their vehicles don't meet
highways safety standards for headlight height and bumpers?

The penalities for violating the regulations are civil in nature,
however they are peanalties nonetheless, and are spelled out in 49 USC
463. Included in that section is the authority granted the FAA to
impose penalties for violation of its regulations. I am sure that
other agencies (including the FCC) have been granted similar powers
through the USC. Otherwise, I could hop into Travolta's 707 and fly
around willy-nilly in U.S. airspace while blocking radio signals
without any fear of any repurcussions. Those regulations are just
regulations and not law after all.

You are not the Federal Government.

Regardless of what you may think about the applicability of a
government's ability to circumvent its own laws/regulations, it can be
a relevant point for all those who are bound by those regulations (ie
pilots).

Life is not fair; get over it.

BTW, your conclusion that I dislike the current crop of government
officials is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion of whether
or not the selective (or unselective for that matter) suspension of a
regulation or law by a government is "right." That is beside your
presumption that it (the government's disregard for its own laws) will
change with the next election is flawed to say the least.

Then why bother to mention Gitmo in an aviation group when the topic
is GPS and "jamming" thereof?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

On Jul 23, 12:15 pm, wrote:
Doug Semler wrote:
On Jul 22, 6:04 pm, wrote:
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
DougS wrote:
wrote in message
...
Tina wrote:
Does anyone know if it's legal to interfere with nav sat reception? It
would be interesting to know, for example. if there were known outages
when the president was at his father's estate in Maine.

In the US, it is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any
radio service.

However, the the US government is not bound by this.

Actually, it is in a theoretical sense. Otherwise the US would be a
police
state.

The topic is interference with radio services.
*And* the legality thereof.
Premise: It is illegal to deliberately cause interference to any radio
service.
Premise: The US government is bound by its own laws.
Conclusion: The US government cannot legally cause interference to any radio
service.

The FCC doesn't write laws.

The FCC writes regulations.

The Congress writes laws.

I doubt you understand the difference and I have no desire to either
educate you or get into a long drawn out discussion on something not
at all related to piloting based on your dislike for the current
crop of government officials, all of which will change with the next
election anyway.

That's a bull**** strawman argument, and you know it. The regulations
(written by FAA or FCC or other executive branch and codified in the
CFR) have the force of law in the United States. The authority of an
executive agency to establish the regulations is granted by the US
Code. (Hint: the FAA's authority is established in 49 USC). Why do
you think there are exceptions written into TFRs for military
aircraft? If you don't think the CFR applies to government entities,
then those exceptions wouldn't be required, would they?

The Federal Government must obey the Constitution and those laws
enacted by Congress that say so.

Isn't that what I said? By extension, they must obey the CFRs

Does any Federal organization file a tax return?

Don't be silly. A federal organization doesn't fall under the
definitions of required filers.


Will the FAA ramp check a USAF F-16 pilot to see he has all his
documentation?

Just because they can doesn't mean they will (assuming that they can
g)


Will the FCC bust the Army because none of their field radios has
a station license?

Army field radios aren't category B


Will the DOT bust a Marine convoy because their vehicles don't meet
highways safety standards for headlight height and bumpers?

The DOT doesn't have jursidiction for this over the highways in any
particular state. Each indiviudal state does. And each state has
specific exemptions regarding military vehicles on their highways.
But neither does it mean that the convoy can go down the highway at
100 miles per hour either.


Here are some questions:
Are military ATC controlles certificated?
Do military aircraft require IFR clearances in IMC (not in
restricted airspace).



The penalities for violating the regulations are civil in nature,
however they are peanalties nonetheless, and are spelled out in 49 USC
463. Included in that section is the authority granted the FAA to
impose penalties for violation of its regulations. I am sure that
other agencies (including the FCC) have been granted similar powers
through the USC. Otherwise, I could hop into Travolta's 707 and fly
around willy-nilly in U.S. airspace while blocking radio signals
without any fear of any repurcussions. Those regulations are just
regulations and not law after all.

You are not the Federal Government.

So if I were, I could.


Regardless of what you may think about the applicability of a
government's ability to circumvent its own laws/regulations, it can be
a relevant point for all those who are bound by those regulations (ie
pilots).

Life is not fair; get over it.

When people try to play by the rules, and expect the rules to be
followed by all parties, but the rules are arbitrary for certain
parties, it can create a dangerous situation (see military flights
filing IFR)


BTW, your conclusion that I dislike the current crop of government
officials is a red herring and irrelevant to the discussion of whether
or not the selective (or unselective for that matter) suspension of a
regulation or law by a government is "right." That is beside your
presumption that it (the government's disregard for its own laws) will
change with the next election is flawed to say the least.

Then why bother to mention Gitmo in an aviation group when the topic
is GPS and "jamming" thereof?

sheesh Ever heard of "example to prove a point?"