| Revision as of 16:47, 27 March 2013 view source212.57.231.110 (talk) →Sources of electronic harassment← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:24, 29 March 2013 view source 212.57.231.110 (talk) →Sources of electronic harassmentNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| == Sources of electronic harassment == | == Sources of electronic harassment == | ||
| A privately funded investigation lasting seventeen months which involved obtaining information from two UK police forces, resulted in finding six electronic harassment victims living in different parts of the UK. Most of them were in cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester. All six were experiencing continuous ] harassment and directed energy weapon attacks. Investigators discovered that in all six cases the source of |
A privately funded investigation lasting seventeen months which involved obtaining information from two UK police forces, resulted in finding six electronic harassment victims living in different parts of the UK. Most of them were in cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester. All six were experiencing continuous ] harassment and directed energy weapon attacks. Investigators discovered that in all the six victim's cases, the source of their electronic harassment was from small which were present in the airspace above them. The drones were able to remain in constant flight using beamed power supplied from the ground using high power diode lasers and (magnetic actuator controlled) mirrors onboard the drones to deflect light, reflecting it onward to multiple craft which convert a portion of the beams light energy back to power using custom photovoltaic arrays. In the past, the source of electronic harassment had been from perpetrators on the ground, not from aerial sources. | ||
| In all six cases, the operators of the drones had not obtained licenses from the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which are necessary in order for drones to be operated legally. The investigation involved questioning an ex RAF pilot who had thirty eight years of aircraft and flying experience. He was an expert on remote piloting and he had spent four years as a safety inspector specifically with unmanned aerial vehicles. According to him the quadroter drones sourcing the electronic harassment were being flown illegally because they did not have a red anti-collision light which would allow other aircraft to be-able to see the drones. Also they did not have a white strobe, a light which must be pointing in a forward direction at all times. | In all six cases, the operators of the drones had not obtained licenses from the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which are necessary in order for drones to be operated legally. The investigation involved questioning an ex RAF pilot who had thirty eight years of aircraft and flying experience. He was an expert on remote piloting and he had spent four years as a safety inspector specifically with unmanned aerial vehicles. According to him the quadroter drones sourcing the electronic harassment were being flown illegally because they did not have a red anti-collision light which would allow other aircraft to be-able to see the drones. Also they did not have a white strobe, a light which must be pointing in a forward direction at all times. | ||
Revision as of 10:24, 29 March 2013
Electronic harassment is a term referring to the use of electronic devices to harass, torture, or physically harm a person, not to be confused with cyberstalking.
Laws against electronic harassment
Michigan
Public act 257 of 2003 makes it a felony for a person to "manufacture, deliver, possess, transport, place, use, or release" a "harmful electronic or electromagnetic device" for "an unlawful purpose"; also made into a felony is the act of causing "an individual to falsely believe that the individual has been exposed to a... harmful electronic or electromagnetic device."
Public act 328 of 1931 makes it a felony for a person to "sell, offer for sale, or possess" a "portable device or weapon" the emits an "electrical current, impulse, wave, or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave, or beam" can "incapacitate temporarily, injure, or kill". This can apply to Tasers or handheld lasers, etc.
Maine
Public law 264, H.P. 868 - L.D. 1271 criminalizes the knowing, intentional, and/or reckless use of an electronic weapon on another person, defining an electronic weapon as a portable device or weapon emitting an electrical current, impulse, beam, or wave with disabling effects on a human being.
Massachusetts
Chapter 170 of the Acts of 2004, Section 140 of the General Laws, section 131J states: "No person shall possess a portable device or weapon from which an electrical current, impulse, wave or beam may be directed, which current, impulse, wave or beam is designed to incapacitate temporarily, injure or kill, except ... Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not less than 6 months nor more than 2 1/2 years, or by both such fine and imprisonment."
Sources of electronic harassment
A privately funded investigation lasting seventeen months which involved obtaining information from two UK police forces, resulted in finding six electronic harassment victims living in different parts of the UK. Most of them were in cities such as London, Birmingham and Manchester. All six were experiencing continuous voice to skull harassment and directed energy weapon attacks. Investigators discovered that in all the six victim's cases, the source of their electronic harassment was from small quad-rotor drones which were present in the airspace above them. The drones were able to remain in constant flight using beamed power supplied from the ground using high power diode lasers and (magnetic actuator controlled) mirrors onboard the drones to deflect light, reflecting it onward to multiple craft which convert a portion of the beams light energy back to power using custom photovoltaic arrays. In the past, the source of electronic harassment had been from perpetrators on the ground, not from aerial sources.
In all six cases, the operators of the drones had not obtained licenses from the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which are necessary in order for drones to be operated legally. The investigation involved questioning an ex RAF pilot who had thirty eight years of aircraft and flying experience. He was an expert on remote piloting and he had spent four years as a safety inspector specifically with unmanned aerial vehicles. According to him the quadroter drones sourcing the electronic harassment were being flown illegally because they did not have a red anti-collision light which would allow other aircraft to be-able to see the drones. Also they did not have a white strobe, a light which must be pointing in a forward direction at all times.
See also
2References
- "2003-PA-0257". Legislature.mi.gov. Retrieved 2013-03-27.
- "Michigan Legislature - Section 750.224a". Legislature.mi.gov. Retrieved 2013-03-27.
- "PUBLIC Law Chapter 264". Mainelegislature.org. 2003-01-15. Retrieved 2013-03-27.
- "Session Laws: CHAPTER 170 of the Acts of 2004". Malegislature.gov. 2004-07-15. Retrieved 2013-03-27.
 | This crime-related article is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |