> I'm a bit confused as to what this message > is trying to ultimately get at > The superior tactical advantage of causing intentional harm with high power beam-forming RF and escape detection. Meaning, assault with powerful RF leaves a victim and bystander unaware of being attacked and my intention is to mobilize interest to plug the gap in safeguards.
> it should be noted that folks who work > with RF... well aware of the necessary > precautions and take them on a day to day > basis when working with this equipment... > At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group was testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement health (a general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood test) from close quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the microwave radio. > ...let's hear that out specifically and I'm all > for working to rectify that. > Applicable to workplaces pertinent to the NANOG community and elsewhere, there is need for publicising policy on curbing harassment using powerful RF along the lines of curbing gender/race based harassment. Why publicise? awareness among non-RF professionals of the leading health symptoms expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF/X-ray voids the element of surprise on an unsuspecting victim. > The former is relatively difficult to do by > virtue of the amount of power necessary. > For instance, RF from Magnetron salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance focused using a horn antenna when positioned on a roof renders the person one floor above within 2 meters effective range of harm. > Quite basically, there are much easier ways > to go about injuring someone if that's what > you want to do > Without a doubt. However, other methods are very well handled by existing forensic tests to minimize repeat offence. With negative use of RF on humans, the perpetrator is fearless of law. > jam RF communications has existed for as > long as RF communication has, and the > knowledge of how to accomplish it is > relatively widespread > Very good point, the FCC has enforcable regulations and the DoJ armed with statutes to curb jamming electronic devices. However jamming a human is not yet present. > ...but lacks specificity with regard to what > safeguards... > Thanks for asking. Safeguards I can think of: - Anti-harassment policy diplayed at a workplace, hospital, hotel etc. to raise awareness of failing health post-overexposure to harmful RF/X-ray (EMF). - Diagnostic/forensic tests that identify biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful EMF. - Forensic tests that make visible transformation of paint and characterize the alteration of microbiome exposed to harmful EMF. - Detectors worn by firefighters^*^, civil law enforcement, military and outdoor wireless developers and field technicians. ^*^ Curtis S.D. Massey. The Facts and Dangers of Rooftop Transmitting Devices on High-Rise Buildings. Mar 31st, 2005. https://www.firehouse.com/safety-health/article/10513827/the-facts-and-dangers-of-rooftop-transmitting-devices-on-highrise-buildings . On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, Matt Harris <m...@netfire.net> wrote: > Matt Harris > | Infrastructure Lead Engineer > 816‑256‑5446 > | Direct > Looking for something? > *Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/> > | *Email Support* <h...@netfire.net> > | *Billing Portal* <https://my.netfire.net/> > We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions. > On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalku...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to >> equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the >> workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to >> your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG >> mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on >> intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since >> 1996-97. >> >> The below described technology risk is applicable to >> computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional >> Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of >> health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet >> infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful >> radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from >> a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power >> Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm >> causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density >> calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm). >> >> This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or >> IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement >> aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg. >> principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement >> in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the >> target of opportunity. >> >> With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block >> the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to >> detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF (combination >> of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident >> on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic >> equipment and people is at present unrestricted. >> >> The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your >> attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the >> much needed safeguards in this context. >> > > While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately > get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications > equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a > person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them > on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence > that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team > members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and > I'm all for working to rectify that. > > On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high > powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications > signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount > of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about > injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally > injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction. > As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed > for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish > it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely > many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement > power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does > so, even inadvertently though negligent practices. > > The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for > ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks > specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the > legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can > really be said here. > >
