From: "Jerald F. Wright" 
To: ATM List 
Reply-To: "Jerald F. Wright" 




Charles Mitchard wrote:

> Jerry, I was not starting a discussion regarding how to disable various so
> called aspects of national defence or civil aviation targets. I was just
> asking if the rumors regarding the banning of laser pointers in South
> Australia were true, If so then our hobby is already under the microscope
> and certain aspects of it are already being regulated without our general
> knowledge.
> We are a tiny proportion of the electorate the longer we keep quiet about
> it the easier it is to ban or regulate any aspect of our hobby.
> This is very similar to the discussions going on in the metalwork nets
> where they are worried about hobby lathes being outlawed due the the fact
> they can make "GUNS"
>
> All this still does not detract from the so called ease that a simple cheap
> device can disrupt so much high tech equipment that is supposed to function
> correctly in a modern society that is flooded with spurious radiation of
> all frequencies. Personally I find it difficult to believe that this can
> actually occur particularly at the wattages available in most portable
> equipment.
> Worrying about what may happen in the future from a discussion held in the
> past is the first step to a totally controlled society.
> So far, thought crime is not illegal in Australia.
>
> all the best
> Charles
> still pushing glass in sunny North Queensland

    I didn't take what you said that way. But there were comments in the thread

about lasering a satellite.  I was only mildly serious (but still serious)
about it not being a good idea to discuss such things.  The discussion
might branch off to proposals and counter proposals of how to do such a
thing.  And believe me. Somewhere there is a jerk that will read them and
try. At that time

it is no longer just idle discussion or thought. When law enforcement
searches his computer and finds e-mails containing the ideas he used, all
the parties in

the discussion rightly become suspect as to a possible conspiracy to do
something clearly illegal. I have my rights to my thought and conversation.
But

I also recognize that government has a right, and in fact, a responsibility
to protect the infrastructure that sustains the society that allows me
those rights.  I don't think there is much reason for worry that an amateur
with less

money than Bill Gates is going to be able to mount a credible effort. But
you never know for sure.

    On regulation of lasers I would point out that about 15 years ago at
Stellafane someone was playing with a laser and a corner reflector in the
campground.  He zapped me in my right eye from about 250 feet away (less
than a

tenth of a second) and my vision was disrupted for 2 days. Such incidents
are the kind of thing that leads to regulation. I don't know the power of
the laser

he had. Probably somewhat more than a typical laser pointer. But I will
tell you I don't want anyone pointing one of those things at or near me.
Needless to

say I perceive a threat from lasers. Do I think they need to be regulated?
At some power threshold the answer is yes.

    Regulation comes about when the electorate or a government institution
perceives a threat of some kind whether real or not. Imprudent discussion
of things that others may perceive as a threat, whether possible or not,
leads to talk of regulation. If you don't want regulation, best not suggest
to others why you should be regulated. I'm not talking about government
control of thought and discussion. I am speaking self control.

    In the city I live in there is an ordinance against pointing a laser at a
person. At the beach, shops sell little laser pointers. The tourist buy
them and of course they shine them on other people. I've heard of no
injuries. But someone must have perceived a threat.

    My last post was to answer the cell phone use in aircraft part of your
post. And the other part was a response to other post in the thread. I was
aware you had not started a discussion of anything evil. And there wasn't
much discussion. I just thought I would jump in before it went that way, to
make the

point that for OUR OWN GOOD as ATM's and telescope users that it is not a
good idea to broadcast ideas on how a telescope could be used for less than
honorable purposes. Even if the ideas are not plausible.

    I sound more seriously worried than I am. But on the other hand I've seen
in my lifetime bad things start from small sparks. So I will stick by my
reasoning here.

    Jerry

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP