Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Claiming that you ought to be able to jam RF on your property is equivalent to claiming you ought to be able to shoot down aircraft overflying your property.

Your comment is incorrect in two ways.

Firstly, shooting down an aircraft, unless it is an unmanned drone, constitutes murder. So you're equating jamming with murder. By doing that, you're attacking a strawman version of my argument: a weakened version of my point which goes like this: "anything whatsoever can be done by a property owner, on their property".

Secondly, the aircraft is thousands of feet above. So it can be considered not to be on your property on the grounds of being outside of that 3D volume which constitutes your property. You're pretending that I have a strawman definition of "property" which is "the entire shadow volume of a designated patch of land, from the center of the Earth out to infinity". I have not revealed the use of any such definition; nor made any argument about what is the definition of property at all.

Even the air space of a country is not indefinitely high. If you're the government of a country, you can in fact shoot down an invading aircraft, but not some foreign satellite that is passing over, 500 km above.



1) So make it an unmanned drone.

2) It remains that only matter, not EM spectrum, within the 3D volume of your property is actually yours.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: