Cheap Car Speed Trap Radar Detector Teardown - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / rf-microwave

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2024, 10:39:04 am
content: product claims to give an audible notification of speed trap radarif detecting or reception of frequency of 22.8 - 24.5 GHz K-band , X-band: 10.525GHz , VG-2: 11.150GHZas the two pcb's are only linked by three wires . positive & negative supply , with one pin for data.this gives opportunity for experimentation. using the microwave detector pcb independently from the rest of the system. see the 3 wire link.between the two pcb's.radio amateurs maybe interested as its a dirt cheap microwave detector.the other pcb is a talking audible notification with speaker and the LED segment display.the mini c USB part is for an add on laser detector accessorie sold separately.this cheap radar detector also comes with a 12 volt lighter adapter.instructions in Russian.I got my unit for passive air traffic radar experimentation maybe using a cooking wok as a microwave dish to increase the antenna gain.so far I have only posted the teardown images of it here. as others have better microwave reception skills then I do have more opportunity to repurpose.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 29, 2024, 11:05:31 pm
content: Probably a good time to remind anyone in Australia that possession of these devices is illegal. Don't get caught with one of these in your car!(I believe WA is the exception here.)Last I issued one of these tickets out, it was around $2000 plus 9 demerit points (that was years ago now).That being said, I've seen these devices work pretty effectively for the type of radar used in police vehicles in Australia. In NSW, police vehicles are fitted with the Kustom Eagle II or III radar systems which produce a strong but relatively narrow beam around 33 to 36 GHz. However unlike on television or in video games, police don't just drive around with the radar beam "released" constantly. When it's not being used to actively measure the speed of a vehicle, the beam is off and thus can't be detected. Additionally, measured speed (e.g.: Radar/LIDAR) are only used to confirm a police officer's own observations, so if a police officer points a radar or LIDAR device at your vehicle, it's probably already too late.Speaking of LIDAR, in my experience, these detectors are almost always completely useless at detecting them. Not only because, like radar, they beam is instantaneous, but they too use a narrow beam and it's largely going to depend on where the device is being aimed. As cars become more automated, I suspect the number of false positives (by units which are advertised to detect LIDAR) will increase.With respect to fixed speed cameras (again, speaking from my experience in NSW, but also applies to other parts of the country), these detectors are ineffective as fixed speed/red light cameras don't use radar or LIDAR, but rather induction loops installed in the road surface.Some states also have "mobile" speed cameras that are usually operated by the state's roads authority (through a contractor like Acusensus). These units are fitted to regular vehicles and typically use a "slant" radar, which allow for detection across multiple lanes (or even in both directions on a road), but at the expense of detection range. These slant radars output a pretty weak signal and by the time your detector might pick up on it, the camera car has probably already obtained a reading of your speed. You almost need to be on top of it for some of these radar detectors to work. Your best defence is to use your own eyes and be observant.I know I'll get comments both for and against these laws, or even people being critical of me stating that "I should know better". I'm not going to engage in a political debate. I'll simply say that whilst I absolutely don't condone breaking the law, let's not kid ourselves, most of us exceed the speed limit in a way that's still safe, even if it's technically breaching the road rules. If you are going to speed, drive to the road conditions (and those around you), don't exceed your own skill level or the capabilities of your car, and if you do get caught, take responsibility for your own actions rather than trying to lie your way out of it (the "attitude test" is real).EDIT:Possession of Radar/LIDAR detectors in vehicles are unlawful in all Australian states and territories (including Western Australia, where they were legal prior to October 2020).

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 29, 2024, 11:25:50 pm
content: I don't think that the police have used RADAR in the US for over 30 years. I bought a used ex-police RADAR gun at a garage sale about 20 years ago for $5. I don't even know what happened to the radar detector(s) that I never owned.Radar detection devices aren't actually illegal in the US but some states like Virginia would give you averyhefty fine if they caught you with one. Like $250 in 1975 dollars. There is a law on the books in many states that was written in the 1930s that made it illegal to own equipment that could be used to listen in to policeradiobroadcasts. Virginia and a few other states made a very liberal interpretation of that law to charge people thatpossessedpolice radar detectors, even if they weren't using it. Even though by the 1970s, people could and frequently DID listen into police radio broadcast with impunity and police radio scanners could be bought in any Radio Shack.The police in the US now use LiDAR and there are LiDAR detectors but LiDAR operates so fast that by the time that you get the warning, The LiDAR has already recorded your speed. LiDAR is also more directional than RADAR so unlike RADAR you can't detect it unless it's pointed directly at you.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 03:01:27 am
content: Unlike here in NZ where RADAR detectorsarelegal.These cheap ones are so cheap it's nuts if you don't stock up on them:https://www.emax.co.nz/360-Degree-V7-Radar-Detector-8526.htmlHowever their performance doesn't compare with my 20yr old Escort X50 swiped from the son when he moved to WA where it certainly is illegal to have them.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 03:14:08 am
content: Quote from: tautech on January 30, 2024, 03:01:27 amI stand corrected. That law was changed in 2020 to bring WA in-line with the rest of the country.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 03:37:55 am
content: Sounds like the laws in Australia are much like those in many US states, which DON'T outlaw possession of these things, but do outlaw operating them (and possibly possessing them) in a moving vehicle.This would leave owning one for experimentation as proposed by the OP perfectly legal. But as always, I am not a lawyer and so get real data from a good lawyer who specializes in the appropriate fields of law if it really matters to you.In my limited on the road experience with these things my experience is much like Halcyons. Little if any better than just paying attention and slowing down at obvious locations for speed traps. And many false alarms from microwave sensors in automatic door openers. His advice is also sound. Drive safely and take responsibility for how you drive.I am not a microwave expert but this looks about as I would expect inside. Perhaps the most interesting thing to me is that although the instructions are in Russian, there is not a single Cyrillic character to be seen inside. Not on the castings. Not on the PWB and not on the components.

author: tautech
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 04:30:11 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on January 30, 2024, 03:37:55 amThis.Here in NZ the agenda is protect us from ourselves and bombard us with speed signs are not a target speed however after 4 weeks in WA over Xmas, their speed signs definitely are the target speed !Very refreshing it was too to see how WA just got on with what they had to do.Everyone travelled at the limit but never over except for a very few.Here many use the speedsters as RADAR bait and foolishly many go outta their way to keep up with them, putting themselves at risk driving beyond their competency.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 05:26:40 am
content: Quote from: tautech on January 30, 2024, 04:30:11 amAs with most things, laws are targeted at the lowest common denominator (or it's an economic decision). It's quicker and cheaper to reduce a speed limit after a series of fatal crashes, rather than looking into the root cause of the crash and perhaps re-engineer the road or some other solution. Regardless of the rules, there will always be people who will try to find some way "around the system". That's human nature. How many decades have we known about the dangers of drink driving, or mobile phone use, yet some people will just keep doing it.Personally, I hate the use of cameras for offences where the situation is not black and white (e.g.: Speeding). I never bothered with anyone simply exceeding the limit by 10 km/hr (unless it was a school zone). I would rather see every intersection have a red light only camera, and re-invest the money in more police on the road to educate motorists and enforce road safety. Police have discretion, cameras do not. Police can detect and deal with multiple offences simultaneously, cameras are generally limited to one or two. Drivers who continually fail to get the message can catch the train/bus.

author: vk4ffab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 06:09:17 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 30, 2024, 05:26:40 amI do not have a problem with speed cameras, police trickery by putting cameras at the bottom of hills or any other mechanism used to catch people out, the simple solution to all this is do not speed. I have not had a ticket in over 20 years by not playing Dick Johnson and Peter Brock on the roads.

author: p.larner
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 08:13:20 am
content: here in the uk they are not for making the roads safer but a cunning way to collect money,guess its the same in most places nowadays?.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 09:04:14 am
content: Certainly the automated speed cameras are seen by many as revenue raisers, due to their typically low margin (e.g. 3kph over the posted limit)OTOH, if a patrol officer detected you on their handheld speed gun, usually they wouldn't waste their time chasing after you if you were only 3kph over. Usually they chase after bigger targets like 15kph and over, in which case, you deserve to be pulled over.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 09:54:24 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on January 30, 2024, 09:04:14 amThat and there is an automatic 3 km/hr error applied to speed measurements by policy. Different devices have varying amounts of error by nature of how they are designed, distance of travel, whether the measuring device is stationary or moving, and cosine error all have some impact on measured speed. Likewise, doing silly things like shooting LIDAR through the front window of a vehicle is a no-no. The error (at least in Australia) always favours the motorist.There are plenty of rumours going around about how much leeway there is in radar measurements. 10% is often cited, which isn't entirely correct, but near enough for the purposes of the general public.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 30, 2024, 11:18:34 am
content: Here by me in S. Africa nobody has RADAR detectors any more, as no police uses them. You get the temporary cameras with LIDAR, where detecting the beam comes with you already having seen the flash, telling you to expect a nice holiday picture, or with you getting a hint to pull over by the cop at the side of the road. There $50 and the fine vanishes, cost of traveling on the road.Small towns you will see, Monday to Sunday, 305m in from the sign that says "Y district limit", with the 60kph sign, a camera with 2 lines on the road, and depending on the town either genuine film camera, old models still in calibration, and with a high fine to cover the film cost, or more modern ones digital camera, still with the high fines, but set to 67kph as trigger point, not 81kph with the film. Those towns use the camera revenue to fill the town coffers, with locals getting a big discount on the fines, because they will go pay them within 14 days, before the notice reaches them via post. The rest get sent via post, which might take 6 months to be delivered, so they either pay online and avoid the by now passed court date, or come fight it by the magistrate, and run the risk of getting a contempt of court fine tacked on as well. Often the only way you know you have one is you go renew vehicle registration, and get a form with the disk area blank, and a note saying your penalty is x, and you have to settle it first, then apply again.But by me, in a major city, no police speed enforcement for the last decade plus, due to incompetent police force not paying for the certification, and then having to pay back an entire year of fines forced on them by the court. Then found out that they cannot use the single supplier certified, due to non payment, and them having supply chain rules that prevent them from paying for it. Multi millions of dollars in revenue gone, because some council members cannot make a decision and admit they were wrong. Note 3 mayors as well, 2 found guilty of corruption, and moved elsewhere, and the current one not found guilty yet.

author: jonovid
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2024, 09:31:50 am
content: two more images missing from the listthe label on the bottom of the case & the instructions that came with the unit.80% is in Russian. 20% English or Chinglish

author: szoftveres
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 31, 2024, 06:13:21 pm
content: A bit of analysis by the photo:The RF input is coming through a structure 1) that seems to be something similar to choke flange feed, 2) is the first broadband LNA with its input capacitively coupled to the feed. 3) is an LC lowpass filter, presumably to filter out everything above the maximum frequency. 5) and 6) form a diplexer; according to the OP this device detects radar signals between 22.8 - 24.5 GHz (RF path through the capacitor marked 6) and 10.525 - 11.150GHz (RF path through the dual LC lowpass filter marked 5). 4) is an open narrowband stub, presumably to act as a trap for some in-between bands. 7) is the 2nd LNA for the higher frequency band with its 8\) biasing network and 9) attenuator pad on its output.The 4-pin device 12) bias-filtered by 10) and 11) could be the oscillator-mixer for the higher band, with the SOT-23 MMBT3904 15) actively biasing it via 14). In that case the L-shaped line 13) is the main λ/2 resonator, with the LC 14) filtered Vdd (or Vcc) arriving to its center (zero impedance) point from the MMBT3904. Feedback to the gate (or base) of the oscillator is capacitive, implemented by the diagonal line. IF (or baseband) output is via 11) LC lowpass filter.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 12:52:54 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 29, 2024, 11:05:31 pmAs I understand this is just a receiver, it don't transmit anything. It cannot be illegal, because it don't affect anything.Prohibiting such things is equivalent to prohibiting having a television or radio.Nice RF PCB layout.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 01:15:46 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 01, 2024, 12:52:54 amThat's not the way law (or the world) works. It's like saying a firearm is just a metal tube.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 04:07:51 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 30, 2024, 05:26:40 amI have some sympathy for that scenario. But in two cases that affected roads I drive regularly teenage drivers exceeded posted limits by multiples (2X in one case, more than 3X in the other based on post crash forensics) and killed themselves and their passengers. Parents of those involved assuaged their emotions by demanding a lower speed limit, and politicians took the path of least resistance and did so.Call me naive, but I don't believe a lower speed limit would have changed a thing for these drivers, nor for any future similar idiots who are driving far beyond their capability. It is just a case of virtue signaling, with no measurable affect on safety.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 04:39:12 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 01, 2024, 04:07:51 amCorrect, in those extreme cases, the speed limit itself is entirely pointless and arbitrary. It's impossible to legislate against stupidity and unfortunately, some people will die as a consequence of their actions.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 04:49:07 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 30, 2024, 03:14:08 amThanks for the correction. It appears I've been lucky in not being caught and I've now taken the bird dog out of the car. Didn't know the law had changed.

author: BradC
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 04:51:26 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 01, 2024, 12:52:54 amOddly enough that's not the case. Radar Detector Detectors work by picking up the local oscillator from a radar detector which tends to leak from the horn. So while in theory they're not transmitters, in practice they tend to be. I have a specially filtered and attenuated Bell radar detector, but the right RDD will still pick it up,

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 11:59:48 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 01, 2024, 01:15:46 amNo, using firearm can do harm and damage for other. This is why it requires license.Using receiver cannot do harm and damage for others, because it don't have emission.But radio transmitter can do, this is why using radio transmitter requires license and using radio receiver don't needs license.The same thing with these radar detectors, its just detect radar nothing else, it does not interfere the correct operation of the radar.But if you use active anti-radar, which uses transmitter in order to jam and interfere the correct operation of the radar, it will require license to use it.Quote from: BradC on February 01, 2024, 04:51:26 amlocal oscillator power is much below power limit for the devices which require license.The limit is about 10-50 mW depends on frequency and local law specific.It is safe to use local oscillator and receivers with no license.And after all, you can build radio receiver which don't have local oscillator working on radar frequencies. This is not a problem to do frequency shift and receive it on different frequency. So you will be unable to detect radar detector because it will not use any radar frequency at all.PS: for receivers there are possible some nuances, because some receivers architecture can produce pretty strong emission and even can interfere nearby receivers, but usually all receivers RF power leakage is much below power limit for unlicensed usage.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 12:14:32 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 01, 2024, 11:59:48 amYou're looking at this with an over-simplistic view of the world.Imagine someone who is exceeding the speed limit, who might have ordinarily have been caught doing the wrong thing and learnt a lesson, but didn't because they had a radar detector. Maybe it worked just that one time, maybe it got them off-the-hook several times. What if that person then goes on to drive like an idiot, over-estimating their driving ability or thinking "they won't get caught" and takes additional risks? THAT could have direct results.Another way you could look at it is the "Swiss Cheese Model". A disaster might not occur because "only" x-number of factors align, but all it takes is y-number of factors to align and someone ends up dead, severely injured or even on the low-end of the spectrum, having to pay for costs they wouldn't ordinarily have incurred.On one occasion, I personally attended a fatal collision between a car and a power pole because the driver simply slowed down for the speed camera, only to speed back up again thinking he "got away with it". That driver slammed into a pole due to his own cockiness several hundred metres down the road from the camera and killed his rear passenger who wasn't wearing a seatbelt. I had to knock on that family's door late at night and tell them that their daughter/sister had been killed.Laws are mostly there for a good reason. A radar detector is simply an instrument designed to evade those laws. There might be a positive outcome for the individual, but there is only negative outcomes for the rest of society. I cannot think of a valid reason why anyone would drive around with a radar detector inside their car, apart from selfishness.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 12:40:21 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 01, 2024, 12:14:32 pmNo, on the contrary, I just well understand many possible issues of other approaches.As you probably know, the best solution for some issue is always looks simple, but at the same time has deep and complicated reasons.Quote from: Halcyon on February 01, 2024, 12:14:32 pmYou cannot punish people just for your assumptions.The law cannot be based on lie, assumptions or fabrications.You're needs to use strongly documented and verifiable facts in order to bring a person to justice.For example if some human has hands, you cannot punish him just because you're thinking that he can use hands to make some bad things. If you want to punish someone, you're need to have a strongly documented proof what exactly bad things he already did.Using lie, assumptions or fabrications to punish someone is illegal.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 12:55:02 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 01, 2024, 12:14:32 pmAre you sure that without radar detector it will be possible to get less death?If that driver didn't simply slowed down, it may lead to much worse catastrophe, with much more death...Just because higher speed leads to higher damage with non linear dependency. Isn't it?May be radar detector is the only thing which allowed to minimize number of victims in this incident. And it saves a lot of lives... Who knows?Did you hear aboutButterfly Effect?Quote from: Halcyon on February 01, 2024, 12:14:32 pmYou cannot judge and punish persons just because you thought that he can do some harm for others. You can analyze things and make fabrications for yourself, that is your right. But you cannot use your own fabrications in order to blame or punish someone if you don't have valid and verifiable facts that exactly that people already did bad thing. Just because fabrications can be used to blame anyone for things which he never did and even didn't wanted to do. Such behavior is not justice, but speculation and fraud.The passive radar detector cannot make harm for others. It don't affect radar function. That is the fact.All other things like "if people know about radar he can do bad things" is just a speculation.In practice, when humans know that their actions are monitored they tend to commit fewer violations.It means that these who have radar detector tends to do less violations, because they see signs that their speed is monitored.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 01, 2024, 11:37:41 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 01, 2024, 12:40:21 pmAnd it's not. It's often based on mistakes of the past. In any case, whether you believe the law to be unfair or not is completely irrelevant, it still applies.I still think you're completely missing the point and your thinking is clouded by your own biases (e.g.: It's "just" a receiver therefore it can do no harm). That kind of thinking is demonstrably false. Just becauseyoudon't see it doing any harm, doesn't make it so. There are plenty of variables that can come into play.Quote from: radiolistener on February 01, 2024, 12:55:02 pmYes, you absolutely can! What world are you living in? What do you think firearm laws are for? They are they to restrict gun ownership based on individual risk.What about speed restrictions for novice drivers? Same deal. It's all based on risk and lessons learned from the past.It's not a punishment, it's ensuring safety for the greater good. You as an individual are just not that important in the grand scheme of things.

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2024, 12:10:46 am
content: Quotein the uk ,use a receiver to receive and decode on air television transmission and you need a license, untill 1971 you even needed a license just to receive radio transmistions

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2024, 12:37:22 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 01, 2024, 11:37:41 pmThere is nothing false, radio receivers are absolutely safe and cannot do harm for someone.But persons, who says otherwise are not safe and can do harm, they are tend to hide their criminal affairs under plausible pretexts of supposedly ensuring security.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 02, 2024, 01:05:26 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 02, 2024, 12:37:22 amYou're a clown. I can see there is absolutely no getting through to people like yourself. I'm not entertaining your jaded government views and silly reasoning anymore.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2024, 01:12:45 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 02, 2024, 12:37:22 amIn a similar argument to, "guns don't kill people, people kill people", radio receivers can definitely be used by people to cause harm to people.A remote piloted drone carrying an explosive, is one such example of a radio receiver causing harm. A less obvious example is a person intercepting & receiving radio transmissions of military troop movements for ambush.In the context of this thread, a radar detector detector enables the driver to ignore speed limit enforcement, causing unsafe driving and potential collision with another vehicle.

author: vk4ffab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2024, 01:44:44 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 02, 2024, 12:37:22 amSimple reductive arguments might look great for winning an argument on the internet, but they do not account for all eventualities that a much more nuanced argument does. A radio receiver is perfectly safe and cannot cause harm is like saying Arsenic is a perfectly safe chemical and Heroin is a perfectly safe drug. Both statements are true only if we never use either for an application. In the same way as depending on how a radio receiver is used, it most certainly can cause harm, to both the user and to other people. In the case of a speed trap detector, yes its a simple receiver and a receiver by itself causes no harm, but when its coupled with someone using it to break the speed limit, death and injury can occur. The receiver portion of my home brew weather station fell on my foot and broke a toe and plenty of people have injured their backs moving the big iron receivers from the 40's and 50's that weigh over 50Kg, everywhere you look, receivers are trying to kill us.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 02, 2024, 11:13:15 pm
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on February 02, 2024, 01:12:45 amThis is completely incorrect argument. The gun is weapon, this is an instrument which is used to kill people.The radio receiver is safe device which cannot kill someone and there is no way to do harm to someone by using radio receiver, because this is passive device.You can use gun to do harm to others, but there is no way to use radio receiver to do harm to others, this device is not suitable to do harm. That's the key difference.The actual reason why mafia want to prohibit unlicensed usage of radio receivers is censorship.Such censorship is not about society security, but about setting up slavery and totalitarian regime.So, when you hear that someone saying that using radio receivers is illegal, you can know that this is strong indication that this person is working for corrupted mafia criminals and his actual goal is not security, but censorship and slavery regime.The same thing with passive radar detectors, when people using it, they know that the speed is monitored, so they will be more careful and make less rule violations. This is good for society security. But not good for corrupted mafia criminals who earn money on these radars (fines, etc), because they needs more rule violations in order to earn more money...That's why mafia criminals don't want people to use radar detectors, simply because they want people to commit more violations and crimes, just because it will allow them to earn more money on fines... This is their business.There is nothing illegal to listen radio from different countries. If some country prohibit it, this is just a violation of the Human Right Pact. That's the violation of government officials.The same, each Human has right to check if someone is monitoring and collecting information about him with no permission. Passive radar detector is just a device which allows to detect illegal activity directed against Human. Passive radar detector don't affects others, it just detects intrusion into private life. And each Human has a right to know about such intrusion...

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2024, 12:17:28 am
content: "Charge them with Avoiding a Legal Trap" - saw it in a movie, cant remember which one, i think it was one with Chuck Norris

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2024, 12:31:26 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 02, 2024, 11:13:15 pmYou deliberately ignored the rest of my post which explained how a radio receiver can do harm to others.For example, one can use a radio receiver to listen to enemy soldier movements, and direct an attack on the enemy position.For example, AIM-120 air-to-air missile uses a radar receiver to guide the missile to destroy its target.Your argument is incorrect because you incorrectly isolate the radio receiver from surrounding context. Context cannot be ignored.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2024, 12:43:28 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on February 03, 2024, 12:31:26 amIn your example, using a radio is not illegal. Illegal action in this example is to direct an attack on the enemy position.It is pretty simple to understand that there is nothing illegal if you remove really illegal action "direct an attack on the enemy position" from your example.Quote from: Andy Chee on February 03, 2024, 12:31:26 amAgain the same. Using radar receiver is not illegal. Illegal action in this example is to guide the missile to destroy the target.Just think about it, what happens if you eliminate really illegal action "guide the missile to destroy it's target" from your example... Missile uses a radar receiver, but don't do anything illegal (don't guide the missile to destroy its target)... Do you understand the difference?It's pretty easy...I will provide you different example, micro-controller which controls nuclear bomb uses arithmetic operations and it leads to mass murder andradiation sickness for these who survive... Does it means that arithmetic is illegal and learning it in the school should be prohibited to avoid mass murder and radiation sickness?

author: themadhippy
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2024, 12:54:41 am
content: QuoteMaybe in your country,but in the uk the rules are different

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2024, 01:53:11 am
content: Quote from: themadhippy on February 03, 2024, 12:54:41 amI don't know much about UK laws. I know about USSR where using radio receivers to listen some radio stations was not allowed by KGB. It's surprise for me that UK still has the same communism censorship.According to Article 19 ofInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:QuoteSo, you have right to listen all what you want and your government cannot cancel it. But government can apply some restrictions to use information obtained in such way for specific cases which shall be necessary for "respect of the rights or reputations of others or national security". Unfortunately this amendment is sometimes abused...How it works, let's analyze example provided by Andy Chee:Quote from: Andy Chee on February 03, 2024, 12:31:26 amAccording to Article 19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, you can listen to enemy soldier movements. But your government can apply restriction to not allow you to use collected information "to direct an attack on the enemy position".So, with the right to listen the radio, you're get obligation to not help any party involved in the conflict with information obtained in such way.When you help any party involved in conflict you're doing illegal action and thus give the right to legally punish you for your illegal action...As you can see, listening radio is not illegal, but helping any party involved in conflict is illegal...And it don't matters how you get that information. The illegal action is further transfer of such information to any party.This is pretty easy to understand, because listening radio don't do harm to anyone, but sending information to help some party involved in conflict can potentially do harm to other party. So, using radio to get information is legal, but sending information to other is a subject of possible restrictions.It will be more easy to understand if you notice, that transmitting is a form of sending information, this is why radio transmitter requires license and radio receiver don't requires it...

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2024, 02:44:31 am
content: Summarizing all above, listening to the radio and using passive radar detector is completely legal.But further sending information obtained in such way is a subject of possible restrictions and can be illegal.The same using information obtained from receiver or passive radar detector to earn some advantage also is a subject of possible restrictions. It means that you can freely use passive radar detector, but if you use it's information in order to get advantage, it may break your local law.It means that if police capture evidence that you're using information from radar detector to increase speed, they can punish youfor using that informationto get advantage against other drivers. But if you're using radar detector but don't use it for advantage and don't send information from radar detector to other peoples, there is nothing illegal...

author: vk4ffab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2024, 06:51:01 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 03, 2024, 02:44:31 amActually you are kind of right. In Australia you can use a radar detector, detecting radar is not actually illegal. But, detecting radar while operating a motor vehicle is. Just like you can legally get as drunk as you like, but you cannot operate a motor vehicle while drunk, ride a horse or a bicycle while drunk either. Its the how, not the what that matters IE the context. This is not communism or whatever tin foil hat sovereign citizen nonsense you want to invoke, just a simple understanding of our laws and how they apply.Here is the actual statute, only simple reading and comprehension is required here.(1) A person must not drive a vehicle if the vehicle has in or on it-(a) a device for preventing the effective use of a speed measuring device; or(b) a device for detecting the use of a speed measuring device. Maximum penalty-40 penalty units.(2) Subsection (1) applies to a device whether or not the device is operating or in working order. --Other states its illegal to own, sell or store devices used to detect speed detection devices, as well as use them. QLD police have devices that can detect radar detectors. They are a locally produced item. So yeah, good luck with your its communism crap. LOL

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 03, 2024, 11:17:42 am
content: Quote from: vk4ffab on February 03, 2024, 06:51:01 amUnfortunately it seems that this restriction fits with Article 19 ICCPR. The key point here is that one person who drive car has information about radars, but other don't have such information, so such information can discriminate other drivers. And since you're needs driver license, technically government has right to restrict driver license to not have such advantage for single person.So, this is example of how amendment in article 19.3 ICCPR is abused by some states.In theory such restriction can violate Article 19 ICCPR, for example when all drivers have radar detectors on their vehicles, but since some of them don't have it, it will be hard to use such possibility to sue such restriction.Quote from: vk4ffab on February 03, 2024, 06:51:01 amSuch restrictions (if they really exists) is obviously violate article 19 of ICCPR which has higher priority than local laws. Just because amendment of article 19.3 ICCPR cannot be applied to "own, sell or store devices used to detect speed detection devices, as well as use them".Quote from: vk4ffab on February 03, 2024, 06:51:01 amYou can detect radar detectors if they using local oscillator working on specific frequency and this local oscillator has leakage emission. But using such local oscillator at that frequency or leakage emission from it is not necessary to detect radars.What happens if someone using passive radar detectors without oscillator working on such frequency, don't have emission on radar frequency and such radar detector cannot be detected with detectors of radar detectors?Using such detectors of detectors and all that crap looks like attempt to hide mistakes in the local law, because such restriction law breaks base Human Rights to get information about unauthorized intrusion into private life of Human.So this is typical communism, because they don't respect the right for private life of Human. They trying to intrude into private life of Human and trying to hide that fact with stupid restrictions which violates article 19 ICCPR.They can apply restrictions for drivers license, but cannot apply such restrictions for non licensed activity, such as simply own, store or use devices used to detect speed detection devices if such device is passive and don't prevent using speed radars.

author: vk4ffab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2024, 12:28:38 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 03, 2024, 11:17:42 amI think you might be taking a very liberal view of what Article 19 provides. It the protection of opinions and expression of opinions. Owning a speed radar detection device is not an opinion or the expression of an opinion. It is a physical device, not a concept and as such the government here can limit, restrict or outlaw such devices as they see fit.You can have the opinion speed detection devices should be legal, you can express those opinions in text or in speech in whatever medium you deem to be appropriate, but in some states here, you still cannot own one because that is illegal. No human rights have been violated here because the taking away of the right to own a detection device has not limited your ability to express an opinion.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2024, 08:58:06 pm
content: Quote from: vk4ffab on February 05, 2024, 12:28:38 amHere is quote from article 19:QuoteAs you can see it includes any information, include information about using radar against you. And it includes any media of person choice, include radar detector as media.Restrictions can be applied on activity which can affect freedom of other persons. For example using active radar, transmitter, vehicle or firearm can affect safety of other persons and this is why using such kind of devices is a subject of regulation and requires license, such as drivers license to use vehicle, ham amateur license to use transmitter, firearm license to use firearm, etc.But since passive radar detector cannot affect freedom of other persons, it's usage cannot require license.The only way to require license for such safe device is totalitarian dictature regime which treats all humans as slaves...Such restriction for passive radar detector is the same as restriction to read some books or something like that.This is not about safety, but about totalitarian dictature and slavery.The restriction for drivers license to not use radar detector which exists in some countries is a trick to bypass such limitation of article 19. But this is limitation for drivers license, but not for radar detector itself.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 05, 2024, 09:30:57 pm
content: Quote from: vk4ffab on February 05, 2024, 12:28:38 amNo, it directly violate the human right to get information about the fact of using radar against the Human, which is intrusion into private life of Human. Such restrictions can be applied for animals or slaves, but cannot be applied to Human.The function of passive radar detector is the only inform Human about RF exposure from radar.Any Human has the right to know that someone uses radar against him. At least because using active radar requires RF exposure and it can affect person health and his private life, for example such RF exposure can affect functions of some electronics devices. And Human has the right to get information about such RF exposure. If you restrict the use of passive radar detector, you're violate that Human Right.And note, that the only goal of such restriction is to hide information about intrusion into Human private life and restrict to obtain such information. Which is obviously Human Right violation.This is the same as to restrict Human to use home alarm system to detect criminal intrusion into his home...If you're doing right things against other persons, you're don't needs to hide that fact. If you're want to hide it and want to restrict Human to detect your actions against him, it means that you're doing illegal things, and you're doing criminal.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2024, 12:56:03 am
content: This conversation illustrates why the US is buried in a plague of lawyers, and while it seems not as bad in other countries the problem exists.Two people reading the same text and coming away with totally different conclusions as to what it protects and why. The law attempts through specialized use of language and very long descriptions with endless definitions and clauses to corral both views into a common understanding which hopefully correlates at least partly with the intent of the law writers. And then trials and juries and judges to try to sort it out. And the continued usage of lawsuits and trials indicates that the objective of clearly defining has not been achieved.The problem doesn't start with the lawyers. I am sure that the anti-radar detector laws didn't intend to prevent anyone under any circumstance from being able to receive radar frequencies. They just wanted to keep people from using them to violate highway safety laws. But as illustrated here there are people who are willing to interpret the law with that intent. To the degree that my Radio Shack microwave oven leakage detector would probably fall outside their definition of acceptable, particularly if I had it in the car so I could check the brother-in-laws microwave. It isn't specific to speed radar frequencies, isn't sensitive enough to be useful for avoiding speed radars, but I am pretty sure that under some circumstances it could detect such. On the other side of the coin, I doubt that various human rights laws around the world were not enacted with any of these specific details in mind, and probably most who were involved didn't imagine such broad applications.So the fundamental problem is that people everywhere are perfectly willing to utilize any tool available to assist them in pursuing their own particular interests. A variant of the "If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail to be driven in." In many cases this willingness is dressed up with tidings of efficiency or the good of the people or simplicity or any number of other nice sounding explanations, but at root it is trying to get their own way.

author: vk4ffab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 06, 2024, 05:01:44 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 05, 2024, 08:58:06 pmThe part in bold is not how this works. You have no right to know the opinions of others, information they hold etc etc. You only have the right to hold and express your own views, opinions and information.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2024, 04:47:17 am
content: Quote from: vk4ffab on February 06, 2024, 05:01:44 amThat's don't works in that way. If someone apply some kind of exposure on your body (radar with RF exposure in this case), you're have right to get information about it.The same as you have right to know if someone applying poison, radiation or other kind of exposure on your body.Applying some kind of exposure on your body or doing some medical experiments with your body IS NOT "the opinions of others". It physically affects your body.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2024, 05:22:24 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 07, 2024, 04:47:17 amWhile there is some truth in what you say, as in all things there are limits. If there is widespread data and measurements to indicate the harmlessness of the radiation you have no intrinsic right to gather the information. Even if you have some hypersensitivity condition, your rights are not unlimited. Lets say you are 10 to the eighth more sensitive than the average person. You have no right to demand to see signal levels 10 to the tenth below what has been demonstrated to be harmless. And I extremely doubt that you are eight orders of magnitude more sensitive than the average.

author: vk4ffab
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2024, 06:41:02 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 07, 2024, 04:47:17 amIts kind of an endless strawman argument now, a police radar is not a medical experiment, it must comply with rf exposure limits and probably conforms to some testing standard and has been approved for such tasks. The detection of police radar is not a human rights issue. It has not limited your ability to hold, express or publish your opinions nor has it stopped you from accessing the opinions of others either verbally or published.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 07, 2024, 07:35:41 am
content: Quote from: vk4ffab on February 07, 2024, 06:41:02 amWe're talking about the right to get information about unauthorized intrusion into private life of Human, about unauthorized RF exposure on Human body, about unauthorized medical experiments on Human. A Human has the right to receive information about such actions against him.The attempt to hide such information from affected Human is illegal.The passive radar detector don't prevent police to use radar and check the speed. It just allows Human to know that someone uses radar against him. It just makes things clean and transparent.The bad thing is that someone trying to hide it. It just indicates that person who hiding it just want to do bad things against Human. Because there is no other reason to hide it.When the state introduces restrictions for drivers license to not use radar detector, it means that the state don't interested in safety for vehicle drivers. On the contrary such a state is interested in increase rule violations, because they using radars as a business to earn money. More rule violations leads to more money... And this is why they want to hide its usage...For example, when someone knows that there is radar, he will not violate speed limit, even if that radar is not used for fines. But when someone don't know that there is radar there is more chance that he can violate speed limit. In other words radar detectors prevents speed limit violations. It works like notifier "hey dude, don't exceed speed limit...".As you can see there is only one reason to hide radar usage, if police want more speed violations in order to earn more money on that... Such kind of police is corrupted and is essentially engaged in robbery, but not maintaining and take care about safety as they should.

author: ftg
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2024, 04:30:22 pm
content: In reply tohttps://www.eevblog.com/forum/rf-microwave/cheap-car-speed-trap-radar-detector-teardown/msg5309266/#msg5309266I think this is slightly wrong.The (suspected GaAs pHEMT) first device is the mixer, with the the main "half-ridged horn" feed being for 10.525GHz and 24GHz reception, and the two feeds on the side for 34GHz.IF amplifier with approximately 1GHz center frequency is on the top in that image.In the units I have played around with it it was made with a BFP405 NPN SiGe transistor.I think the "E7" device 7 is just an LO buffer for driving the frontend mixer.6 being an attempt to filter the LO, the size looks about right for ~11GHz.The attenuator 9 is there to limit the pulling on the free running, swept VCO.The VCO runs around 11.4GHz to cover 10.525GHz with high side injection, 24GHz with f/2 harmonic mixing and low side injection and 34GHz with f/3 harmonic mixing and high side injection.The hardware inside the box in these keeps evolving over the years and the IF side is completely different now.Used to be NEC mixer + oscillator chip with LC oscillator on around 900MHz as the 2nd LO and a diode detector on the IF.Now it's some ISM band receiver chip woth 16MHz crystal and thus suspected 1024MHz IF.Sweep is done by a microcontroller.These radiate a lot of LO energy and are trivial to detect.Though not as much as the old units with Gunn-diode local oscillators.If you can stand shaky hand filmed videos, here one can see the leakage from one such unit being measured.

author: szoftveres
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: February 15, 2024, 06:10:08 pm
content: Thanks for the response and for sharing your video; I've never actually had my hands on this device, so only commented on what I saw in the picture.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2024, 05:35:54 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 07, 2024, 07:35:41 amYou are talking absolute nonsense and you've demonstrated you have no grasp of the legal system. Quit polluting this forum with your inane opinions. It's bordering on the level of the Sovereign Citizen movement (which is a whole level of crazy).

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2024, 07:07:48 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 18, 2024, 05:35:54 amThere is no nonsense, this is clean Human rights violation. But things that you're said unfortunately takes place, this is true - unfortunately some countries have such laws violating Human rights. Some of them violate even their own Constitution which has higher priority than law. And the courts are trying to turn a blind eye and ignore these facts due to corruption and mutual cover-up of crimes. This is how mafia works. That's the reality of our world...You can come up with a lot of noble justifications for the bloodiest crimes, you can use ingenious interpretations of laws to commit crimes against Humans, while formally remaining in the legal field. But this does not change the fact that those who do this in fact violate Human rights and are essentially criminals covering up their crimes with supposedly noble goals.Quote from: Halcyon on February 18, 2024, 05:35:54 amit looks like you're attempting to marginalize the accusations in Human rights violations without substantively engaging, just by trying to stick some label like "conspiracy theory", "crazy movement", etc. Isn't it?There is nothing crazy in Human rights. The crazy thing is attempt justifying Human right violations with supposedly noble goals...Using passive radar detector cannot do any harm to someone, just because such device does not affect anyone in any way. Yes, there is possible law restrictions in some countries. And such law restrictions is a clean example of Human rights violation. And please don't talk that it "helps peoples to be more safe", it don't helps to be more safe, it's just helps some corrupted officials to earn more money by robbing civilians, this is just their corrupted business, nothing else.The valid restriction is a speed limit for vehicle. And it doesn't matters if you use radar detector or not. If there is a rule for speed limit, everyone must follow it, because higher speed increase risk for other peoples. That is normal restriction. But restriction for radar detector is not normal and cannot be justified with some crazy talking like "someone who has radar detector will violate speed limit", because this is not true claim.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2024, 08:26:59 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 18, 2024, 07:07:48 amNo. It's not. Simple as that. The rest of your "argument" (if you can even call it that) is moot because of this fact. You keep parroting the same narrow-minded ideas even after several people have proven you wrong multiple times.At some point, you need to stop flogging that dead horse.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2024, 09:00:52 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 18, 2024, 08:26:59 amI don't see "proves" that I'm "wrong multiply times". I just see that it's already proven and pretty clean to understand that your fabrications are broken. Note that your fabrications is your fabrications, but not a fact and cannot be used to accuse someone of speeding without having either the facts and the speed violation itself.I think you're just don't understand law, if you're think that someone fabrication is valid fact of law violation. No, fabrications are not an admissible fact from the point of view of jurisprudence. Fabrications are illegal way to accuse someone and using fabrications as a fact is usually directly prohibited by law in most of countries.The main issue of your broken fabrications is that you're just don't realize that presence of radar detector don't means that person who using it want to do (or already do) speed limit violation.You can use the presence of a radar-detector as an aggravating circumstanceif there is a proven fact of speed limit violation. That is normal and valid.Note, that "proven" means the presence of legal documents confirming the violation. Your fabrications and thoughts cannot be used to "prove" some violation of other person.That's how law works.You cannot use the presence of a radar-detector as evidence that a person violate speed limit or as evidence that people will use information from radar detector to violate speed limit or will do any other violation in case of radar-detector presence. Because this is invalid evidence from law point of view.

author: Andy Chee
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2024, 09:39:35 am
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 18, 2024, 09:00:52 amYou're correct, this would indeed be invalid. That's why this argument would never used by police in court in real life. They would only charge you with speeding if the police detected you speeding. Owning the radar-detector is a separate legal infringement (if any).

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2024, 09:53:10 am
content: Quote from: Andy Chee on February 18, 2024, 09:39:35 amand assuming it as legal infringement is a Human right violation. If your country has such law to restrict use passive radar detector, you can sue your government for Human rights violation. It will be very hard to sue against officials, but if you have enough strength there is a good chance to get monetary compensation for Human rights violation. Be ready it will take many years. If many people will do that, the government will cancel such anti-Human restriction to fulfill laws with international Human rights requirements.Unfortunately, it seems that there is no other way to cancel law with such anti-Human restrictions.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 18, 2024, 10:09:09 pm
content: radiolistener, your responses are getting increasingly more incorrect, devoid of any basis in law, not to mention more ludicrous. If you want to live in your own little fantasy world and pretend things differ from reality, be my guest, but don't pollute this forum with this crap. The rest of us would rather deal with facts.Unless you have any actually questions or comments about the original topic, I'm going to leave it there.

author: DavidAlfa
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 18, 2024, 10:27:45 pm
content: My car had one of these when I bought it.Knowing the expensive consequences if caught, removed it instantly.Anyways it was obsolete in 2015, lots of speed detectors were using laser already.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2024, 11:56:32 am
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 18, 2024, 10:09:09 pmWhat exactly incorrect?Talking "your responses are getting increasingly more incorrect" is disrespectful response, because you didn't explained what exactly incorrect on your personal opinion and didn't provided links on law which confirms your statements.I already provided you with links on Article 19 ICCPR. Human Rights are worldwide and has higher priority than any local law. If you don't agree with Human Rights it don't means that it is incorrect, it's just your personal wrong opinion.If you're think that presence of local law which violate Human right, allows to apply it without consequences you're wrong. Such behavior is the basis for filling lawsuit to International Human Rights Court, which is guided by the Human Rights conventions rather than local laws. This is hard and long way, but it is possible.Forum shows that you're living in Australia, I read that Australia's current laws are failing to prevent human rights abuses, but it don't means that it cancels your Human rights, it just means that it will be more hard to stop Human right abuse.It explains why you're think that Human rights are incorrect. But if you're Human, you're still has Human rights, even if your local law didn't recognize it.It will be interesting to know, how your government handle cases when their detectors of radar-detectors have false positive triggering on some gadget which has some oscillator with specific frequency? Can you carry such gadgets on the vehicle?What happens if someone will put some gadget which uses micro-controller clocked from programmable PLL running at frequency of radar?

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 19, 2024, 12:19:26 pm
content: Quote from: radiolistener on February 19, 2024, 11:56:32 amYou're confusing human rights (as inactualhuman rights), with "laws you don't believe in/misinterpret". Being able to possess a radar detector (or any radio receiver) is not a basic human right. Never was, anywhere in the world.You quoted Article 19 of the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" which talks about the freedom to hold opinions and freedom of expression. This has absolutely zero to do with the Australian Road Rules or what is being discussed in this thread. You can disagree with any law you like. Your opinion doesn't make the law of the land any less valid, nor does it give you the "right" to sue the Government (as you have previously mentioned). Please, never give anyone any legal guidance or advice.What you have spouted throughout this thread is absolute nonsense, and as I said, has no basis in law. But, correct me if I'm wrong... Tell me you have actual formal legal qualifications (or knowledge outside of what you've been told by someone else or read on the internet).Your legal "knowledge" is, at best, based on assumptions, and at worst, based on gullible morons on the internet who think the law doesn't apply to them, in some twisted, non-sensical way. The more you speak, the more I believe you're a conspiracy theorist who cherrypicks certain legal terms and tries to fit them in with a particular narrative. Either that, or there may be something else going on with you which might warrant further attention by an appropriate medical professional (for that I am not qualified to provide any diagnosis).I fear this may not be the first time you've heard words to this effect, so perhaps some self-reflection time is needed. You're obviously going to respond, once again disregarding everything I, and others, have said, but this is here so that those that might stumble upon this thread in the future will be aptly informed.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2024, 01:30:15 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on February 19, 2024, 12:19:26 pmThe Human has basic right to seek information from any media, it includes radar detectors and radio receivers.The right to possess or use radar detector and radio receiver stems from the basic Human right to seek any kind of information from any media.The right to possess or use some device can be restricted if such device may interfere with the operation of other devices. Such as transmitter can interfere with operation of other devices and can affect government services. But passive radar detector and radio receiver don't interfere other devices, so there is no way to restrict itwith no Human right violation. Any attempt to restrict it will be violation of basic Human right to seek information about environment in which he lives.Quote from: Halcyon on February 19, 2024, 12:19:26 pmNo, you're said incorrect things.Article 19 talks aboutfreedom to seek any kind of information through any media of Human choice, here is a quote:QuoteIt includes electromagnetic media, such as RF carriers or laser beams from speed radars, etc.Using radar detector is a kind of seeking information from electromagnetic media.And you have the right to seek and gather this information with passive radar detector.Even if you have local law that restrict it, you're still has this right, it just means that such law violates your right.Unfortunately officials can use such anti-Human laws to punish you, that's true.But you're also can punish officials for Human right violation by suing them.Quote from: Halcyon on February 19, 2024, 12:19:26 pmI'm not talking that local law which violate Human right is not valid. I talking that it violates Human rights. Many countries have instruments to protect Human rights even if it violated by law. It seems that this will be problematic in Australia, this is sad, but your country is not unique.Quote from: Halcyon on February 19, 2024, 12:19:26 pmNo, I don't have formal qualification, but I'm consulting with lawyers, learning laws and formal interpretations of laws related to Human rights (such as slavery, forced labor and conscription, etc). I have some practice in this area and know that it's not easy. Unfortunately today we're needs to know such kind of laws because such kind of Human right violations aggressively enforced all around the world. And it will be more worse soon.Quote from: Halcyon on February 19, 2024, 12:19:26 pmSorry, but using these words like "conspirasy theorist" you're using cheap and dirty manipulation in attempt to try marginalize things that I said with no need to argue it. I consider such behavior unacceptable for a correct and fair discussion. Please don't do that.Quote from: Halcyon on February 19, 2024, 12:19:26 pmI consider this as cheap and dirty manipulation either.If you're don't like things that your opponent said and you don't have argument, there is no need to try to insult or humiliate your opponent. We can just remain with our own opinion. You're don’t obligated to change your opinion and accept mine.Returning to radar detectors, I'm just interesting what happens in your country if officials will false detect "radar detector presence" from some gadget which is not radar detector, but usual CPU driven device with clock synthesizer deliberately tuned at radar frequency?

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2024, 03:21:36 pm
content: Radiolistener you are either an evil person or haven't thought through what you are saying.Regardless of the words in the laws/agreements you are quoting there are real needs and reasons to apply restrictions to the search for information. I don't want people to be able to research nerve gases, to manufacture such in order to get information on how that is done and then employ said gases to gather information on how such gases work in a real world application.While this example is extreme, there are numerous less extreme examples. Here in the US for example we feel quite strongly about the concept of freedom of expression, often called free speech. But widely agree that this doesn't mean the freedom to cause a panic by screaming fire in a crowded theater.All human rights have limitations. The basic rule is that when one persons rights begin to infringe on another persons rights there is need for a limitation. These rules about radar detectors are one place this basic rule is in action. There is certainly room for discussion about whether that interface is being managed properly, but you are completely wrong with your assertions that such human rights are unlimited.

author: radiolistener
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: February 19, 2024, 06:05:53 pm
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 19, 2024, 03:21:36 pmThe reason to hide information from person is when someone want to do crime against that person, such criminals want to hide information in order to avoid responsibility for their crime.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 19, 2024, 03:21:36 pmyou cannot accuse and restrict some person without sufficient and reliable evidence that he has committed or intends to commit a crime.Otherwise you can punish anyone with no reason, just because you want...This is very stupid to make restriction to possess and use knife, just because you're don't want that people be able to use knife for bad things... Why people cannot use knife on the kitchen to prepare food just because of your fears?Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 19, 2024, 03:21:36 pmAgree. That's precisely correct.Quote from: CatalinaWOW on February 19, 2024, 03:21:36 pmCan you please point me, where I wrote that human rights are unlimited?We're talking here about passive radar detector, it is just impossible to affect anyone rights by using passive radar detector. It don't prevent to use radar, it don't prevent police to do their functions. What right limit you're talking about in context of radar detectors?As I said before, the only reason to restrict radar detectors is criminal business of officials mafia which involves maintaining enough speeding level to make money from it through fines. They just want none remind drivers that the speed is monitored and should not be exceeded. That's named corruption and this way keeps high amount of vehicle accidents. Nothing about safety...Proper safety requires prevention measures to avoid speed limit violations at all, but this safe way don't allows to earn money on that corrupted business...If you want prevention measures to avoid speed limit violations you will encourage the installation of radar detectors in every car and place generators along the road that simulate radars, so that people constantly see that their speed is being monitored, even if it is not. Thus, they will not exceed the speed even in the absence of radar.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: February 20, 2024, 12:45:42 am
content: I, and everyone else has had enough of your crap radiolistener. You're wrong and completely misguided. Nothing more to say about it.