Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

arrl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 312 posts

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#101

Post by Blikkentrekker »

generalizations wrote: post #62
jjoonathan wrote: post #8

I can already hear the cries of censorship. "What do you mean crimes aren't protected speech?"

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think you've got that backwards: freedom of speech is a right, that a government ought to recognize. "Protected speech" makes it sound like the only speech we're allowed is what is specifically allocated to us.

Which is the reality.

“Freedom of speech”, much like “freedom of religion”, is an empty statement. — no man wants true freedom in either, so one is only free so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law, and it can thus be surmised as “One has the right to commit legal actions.”.

It's entirely different from such matters as “right to a criminal defence attorney when charged with a crime”, which many do feel should be absolute, and that all other laws must bend and give way to accommodate it.

One already has the freedom to do whatever one wish, so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#102

Post by wedowhatwedo »

neartheplain wrote: post #60

Were those who used ham bands while storming capitol even licensed? Right message, but maybe addressed to the wrong audience. I’ll bet most of these people use Baofengs purchased on Amazon. It’d be great if Amazon could echo this warning on the relevant product page(s).

If you have been reading sites like www.qrz.com for the last few years, you will see that there were perhaps lots of licensed amateur radio operator terrorists there.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#103

Post by blhack »

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #35

Baofeng's, Baofengs everywhere. Of all the images I have seen of the attempted coup, I have only seen baofeng radios. These are very cheap ($20'ish) radios that work very poorly (they splatter all over the bands) even when equipped with decent antennas. They barely work when equipped with the stock rubber-duck antennas. It's easy to be a snob about the type of radios that they are using, but that's not even the point…

I don't know why people complain about Baofengs so much. I have a bunch of baofengs that I bought to pass out as emergency radios at burning man. They have saved at least one person's life, because it meant we were able to call the emergency services when somebody had a heart attack and collapsed. I'm sure that guy is glad that that crappy $20 radio was there and a ham operator had configured it for the 911 service it was used for.

That alone cemented baofengs into my "good to have" category for life. They're cheap, and that's why I have been able to use them in the places I have.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#104

Post by generalizations »

Blikkentrekker wrote: post #101
generalizations wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think you've got that backwards: freedom of speech is a right, that a government ought to recognize. "Protected speech" makes it sound like the only speech we're allowed is what is specifically allocated to us.

Which is the reality. “Freedom of speech”, much like “freedom of religion”, is an empty statement. — no man wants true freedom in either, so one is only free so long as it not thread over the bounds of the law, and it can thus be surmised as “ One has the right to commit legal actions. ”. It's entirely different from such matters as “right to a criminal defence attorney when charged with a crime”, which many do feel…

> no man wants...many do feel

Are you appealing to the desires of the crowd (bandwagon fallacy), or to a moral principle? I'm talking about moral principles, which the laws and the government ought to uphold.

If they don't, the law and/or government is in the wrong. The right to speak your mind is a moral right; arguably, the right to defend yourself with an attourney is a subset of this. The law is not the arbiter of what is right, or what rights humans possess "inalienably". The law only enforces and protects those rights (since it's inefficient for each person to defend their own rights against everyone else: "I will have my attourney at my trial, I challenge you to duel if you disagree").

If freedom of speech is impinged, then a human right has been trampled upon. If a private individual forces someone else to be silent, they are morally in the wrong, even though there's no law against it. If the US government did it, then the US acted against its constitution and broke a moral principle, if not the laws on the books.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#105

Post by mikestew »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #81
jjhale wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baofeng's website has a banner suggesting a surge in demand. > Due to overwhelming demand, we are not able to process any additional orders at this time https://baofengtech.com/

It'll be interesting to see if the CBP finally flexes its muscle and seizes them.

Why would the CBP seize radios that are perfectly legal to sell? That wouldn't be "flexing", that would be "over-reach".

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#106

Post by generalizations »

chmod600 wrote: post #91
generalizations wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Rebellion is bad Not always. Not saying it is here, but I think it depends on the context. Arab Spring, for instance.

The Arab Spring had mixed results, at best.

Just means it partly succeeded, not that the rebellion was a moral failure.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#107

Post by swiley »

UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #35

Baofeng's, Baofengs everywhere. Of all the images I have seen of the attempted coup, I have only seen baofeng radios. These are very cheap ($20'ish) radios that work very poorly (they splatter all over the bands) even when equipped with decent antennas. They barely work when equipped with the stock rubber-duck antennas. It's easy to be a snob about the type of radios that they are using, but that's not even the point…

The reason there's no requirement to identify yourself is that this stuff isn't hard to make and the FCC already employs professionals for tracking (this is a common sport) and arresting people who abuse the radios.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#108

Post by blhack »

nimbius wrote: post #49
UI_at_80x24 wrote: post #35

Baofeng's, Baofengs everywhere. Of all the images I have seen of the attempted coup, I have only seen baofeng radios. These are very cheap ($20'ish) radios that work very poorly (they splatter all over the bands) even when equipped with decent antennas. They barely work when equipped with the stock rubber-duck antennas. It's easy to be a snob about the type of radios that they are using, but that's not even the point…

As a pinch of salt... If you can get a baofeng to last out of the box longer than a week, and manage to DX a handheld or a repeater further than a parking space away, you should at least win a QRP award and a discount on your technicians test before you get sent to the klink.

Strong disagree, and wish this sort of gatekeeping wasn't present. Go get one of these things. They're $20, and ham radio is a fun and useful hobby.

I have many baofeng radios which have been in many forms of being thrown into boxes, backpacks, filled with dust, rained on, abused by drunks, dropped, etc. and they ALL are still working fine, albeit some with dest behind the LCD cover.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#109

Post by freeone3000 »

vaduz wrote: post #100
chmod600 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is reason to worry when the tools of defiance or rebellion are taken away. Rebellion is bad, but maitaining some remote possibility is good. This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government. There is still concern that charges could be heaped on someone to the point they feel the need to plea bargain for something that is either a very…

> Rebellion is bad, but maitaining some remote possibility is good. There is that little affair from 1765 to 1783 that gets generally good press, though. "Context is for kings" is tinged with irony on that one. > This case isn't really so bad because there's no prior restraint, no tools being taken away, or new tools for the government. Jokes aside, any sentence which contains "no tools being taken away" around messa…

>There is that little affair from 1765 to 1783 that gets generally good press, though

Gets good press, but, compared to the Commonwealth countries, it's not clear it was really necessary or beneficial.

Re: Radio users reminded not to use radios in crimes

#110

Post by op00to »

jacquesm wrote: post #76
bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, my Baofeng has no problem on the many repeaters in the Northern Nevada area. Definitely YMMV.

Ah, but are you getting your replies on the band that you are transmitting at ;)?

Yes.
Post reply on HN