Slashdot Mirror

It is

(m) Harmful interference. Any emission, radiation or induction that endangers the functioning of a radio navigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service operating in accordance with this chapter.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

It's pretty much exactly "repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunications service".

The device's secondary purpose is to violate the FCC licence it uses to operate. They even state "We take no responsibility for the trouble you get yourself into if you choose to deploy your Cyborg Unplug in this mode," because they know it's illegal. (it's primary advertised purpose is to block devices from your own network)

Easiest way to get around it would be to change the MAC address. You'd probably need to root your google glass though.

They can donate to PACs, which are a special animal in the American political system

Ummm... No. A PAC (Political Action Committee) is simply a funding mechanism for campaigns. Federal laws (since we are talking about Federal elections) prohibit corporations and labor unions from contributing to campaigns, PACs, or generally from spending money to influence federal elections.

You may be thinking of the ability of Corporations and labor unions to create PACs themselves. They can do that, and 501(c)(4) organizations can, too (most issue-advocacy groups do exactly that - MoveOn.org has a separate PAC, as does the AFL-CIO and many corporations like Best Buy, Amazon, and CVS. But they can't contribute their own funds to them). They can also (since Citizen United) do things like fund movies, books, or other media productions that criticize a political candidate, as long as it is not an endorsement or encouragement to vote or not vote for any specific candidate for election.

That may be a thin line - but unless you have a large war chest to defend yourself with expensive lawyers, you better make sure you follow the very specific relations closely, or you'll find yourself the target of an extremely well-funded and organized prosecution, as many have discovered.

"bitch"? really? there's no need to call anyone that.

and perhaps that is the reason: the flight crew considered the tweet intimidation or threatening. 14 CFR 125.328 prohibits anyone from interfering with the crew: "No person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember's duties aboard an aircraft being operated under this part."

the tweet identified someone by name. rather than taking it up with Southwest corporate or something more measured, the guy called out a specific person. that can be intimidating as hell. there are more reasonable ways to lodge a complaint, and that ain't one of them.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te... Quoting from there: 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. Thus, using a drone / RC Plane / etc. at a height of less than 500 feet would NOT be subject to FAA approval if the above information is accurate and they do not, in fact, have jurisdiction below navigable airspace levels.

Your definition of "clearly" is very different than most people's I think...

It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:

1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones. And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.

But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?

Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.

Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:

91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".

And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:

91.131 Operations in Class B airspace. (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Â91.129 and the following rules:

That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.

There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent f

Your definition of "clearly" is very different than most people's I think...

It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:

1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones. And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.

But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?

Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.

Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:

91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".

And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:

91.131 Operations in Class B airspace. (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Â91.129 and the following rules:

That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.

There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent f

Your definition of "clearly" is very different than most people's I think...

It also differs considerably from what is found in federal law. 14CFR1:

1.1 General definitions. Aircraft means a device that is used or intended to be used for flight in the air.

That says nothing about carrying people. The difference between airCRAFT and airPLANE is also clear, same section:

Airplane means an engine-driven fixed-wing aircraft heavier than air, that is supported in flight by the dynamic reaction of the air against its wings.

The airPLANE is a fixed-wing heavier than air airCRAFT. That means that airCRAFT includes hot air balloon, gliders, and yes, drones. And even the definition of airplane does not include a requirement that people be aboard.

But wait, quadcopters aren't fixed-wing, so are they covered?

Helicopter means a rotorcraft that, for its horizontal motion, depends principally on its engine-driven rotors.

So drones are helicopters, unless they're the fixed wing version. And gosh if the FAA doesn't have the authority to regulate flight of helicopters.

Now what about this "high altitude" limit on the authority of the FAA? Sorry. That's just nonsense. There is well-established case law that the FAA can (and does) regulate the use of aircraft down to the surface. 14CFR91 is the federal law covering general operating and flight regulations, and is applicable as follows:

91.1 Applicability. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section and ÂÂ91.701 and 91.703, this part prescribes rules governing the operation of aircraft (other than moored balloons, kites, unmanned rockets, and unmanned free balloons, which are governed by part 101 of this chapter, and ultralight vehicles operated in accordance with part 103 of this chapter) within the United States, including the waters within 3 nautical miles of the U.S. coast.

Notice that "aircraft" clearly includes kites and even moored balloons, because these had to be specifically exempted from coverage by this part that covers "aircraft".

And 14CFR91 contains rules that apply to aircraft all the way to the surface of the earth. For example, Class B, C, and D airspace extends from the surface up to the specified altitude (it differs), and the "Mode C Veil" extends from the surface up to 10,000 MSL for a distance of 30 miles from the applicable airport. Thirty miles. And 14CFR91.131 clearly says:

91.131 Operations in Class B airspace. (a) Operating rules. No person may operate an aircraft within a Class B airspace area except in compliance with Â91.129 and the following rules:

That kinds makes it clear that the FAA has authority to regulate aircraft from the surface. That cite is just one example of many.

There is no "high altitude" limitation to the rules, and the only reference to "high altitude" that I know of deals with a class of VOR that has a "Standard High Altitude Service Volume". The only thing that "high altitude" might refer to is as a lay description of Class A airspace, which runs from 18,000 feet MSL up to flight level 600 (about 60,000 feet MSL). Note that there are also Class B, C, D, E, and G airspaces which the FAA regulates, so there is a lot of precedent f

Title 47

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

I don't particularly want to understand the FCC's area of authority, so here is Title 47.

except it won't apply to politicians... of course :-p

mobile phones may have been a problem for aircraft in the past, but the regulations for certifying avionics since 2007 are much stricter. older aircraft designs of course aren't subject to current rules which is a pity (since the rules are designed to increase safety) but majority of airline aircraft would be fitted with upgraded avionics anyway, and any upgrades would be subject to current rules (including their integration into existing aircraft electrical and flight control systems).

refer FAR25.1317 - High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

even if you fly in smaller aircraft, if it has avionics installed post-2007 you're likely covered by a similar rule;
FAR23.1308 - High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

except it won't apply to politicians... of course :-p

mobile phones may have been a problem for aircraft in the past, but the regulations for certifying avionics since 2007 are much stricter. older aircraft designs of course aren't subject to current rules which is a pity (since the rules are designed to increase safety) but majority of airline aircraft would be fitted with upgraded avionics anyway, and any upgrades would be subject to current rules (including their integration into existing aircraft electrical and flight control systems).

refer FAR25.1317 - High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

even if you fly in smaller aircraft, if it has avionics installed post-2007 you're likely covered by a similar rule;
FAR23.1308 - High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) Protection
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/te...

Certainly not the FCC. These are unlicensed bands, they don't care what you do with them (which is the whole point of unlicensed bands).

Not requiring a license is not the same thing as not caring what you do.

I wouldn't say that ISM bands are unregulated, at least in the US - they're in fact heavily regulated. What they are are unlicensed.

You still have type acceptance, emission type limits, power/field strength limits, etc. It's not a free-for-all.

In the US, the regulations on "experimental" aircraft are quite lenient. The main limitation is that you can't operate an experimental aircraft in a densely populated area or major airway without special permission. Permission is usually granted after successful flight tests.

The main place for testing unusual civilian aircraft and rockets in the US is Mojave Air and Space Port. They're authorized as both a launch site and an airport. SpaceShip One, the Voyager, and the EZ-Rocket first flew there. There's plenty of room over the desert in case things go wrong.

"You want to test a rocket engine? This is a place where you can do that." - Mojave Air and Space Port Board of Directors

I can't speak for these guys in particular of course, but the FCC actually makes it pretty easy to get a temporary license for limited-power transmissions in a particular area, for experimental use.

This technique has been used for similar setups at remote hacker camps. If you're far away from civilization it's not a big deal.

Lots of info (too much info?) here: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=222cd91db0980b4e6c3c7049e409c6b5&rgn=div5&view=text&node=47:1.0.1.1.6&idno=47

What you want exists under the Part 5 rules, which you can read here. That is a separate radio service that allows experimentation for commercial purposes and other things that would not fit in Amateur radio. You have to file notices, but you can do what you want, and on a lot of different frequencies.

The Part 97 rules for the Amateur Sevice create a pretty good balance between the needs of all of the various users of Amateur radio. It's not really designed for all sorts of experimentation without limit, it's more for experimentation by individuals with explicitly non-profit and personal motivation.

Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification.

Exceptions are made for remote control (telecommand) of space stations and model craft.

97.211(b) Space telecommand station:

A telecommand station may transmit special codes intended to obscure the meaning of telecommand messages to the station in space operation.

97.215(b) Telecommand of model craft:

The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication.

Anyone, licensed or not, is authorized to use any means of radiocommunication to protect life and property.

97.403 Safety of life and protection of property:

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.

Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification.

Exceptions are made for remote control (telecommand) of space stations and model craft.

97.211(b) Space telecommand station:

A telecommand station may transmit special codes intended to obscure the meaning of telecommand messages to the station in space operation.

97.215(b) Telecommand of model craft:

The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication.

Anyone, licensed or not, is authorized to use any means of radiocommunication to protect life and property.

97.403 Safety of life and protection of property:

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.

Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification.

Exceptions are made for remote control (telecommand) of space stations and model craft.

97.211(b) Space telecommand station:

A telecommand station may transmit special codes intended to obscure the meaning of telecommand messages to the station in space operation.

97.215(b) Telecommand of model craft:

The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication.

Anyone, licensed or not, is authorized to use any means of radiocommunication to protect life and property.

97.403 Safety of life and protection of property:

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.

Music using a phone emission except as specifically provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning, except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language; or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification.

Exceptions are made for remote control (telecommand) of space stations and model craft.

97.211(b) Space telecommand station:

A telecommand station may transmit special codes intended to obscure the meaning of telecommand messages to the station in space operation.

97.215(b) Telecommand of model craft:

The control signals are not considered codes or ciphers intended to obscure the meaning of the communication.

Anyone, licensed or not, is authorized to use any means of radiocommunication to protect life and property.

97.403 Safety of life and protection of property:

No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.

That would be great if "organic" actually meant it did not contain any GMOs. That is not currently the case.

Where did you get your information? US and Canadian "Organic" labelled foods must not be GMO.

From USDA:

Excluded methods. A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.

NOBODY is properly testing this stuff,

If you believe that to be the case, then you should be demanding that the regulatory agencies do a better job. They are supposed to be insuring the safety of our food supply.

I'd like to know if it's the kind that's been shown to grow massive tumors in mice.

It was rats, in a single study. If everything that caused tumors in rats were labeled, the label would be almost meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, I think that paper was reason for concern, and it's not all that fantastic to think that eating an herbicide might have health effects. At the same time, if there is evidence that the product is unsafe in humans, it should be removed from market - not simply labeled. If you want to be prudent and avoid the product in the study, that is a simple matter of sticking with organic corn - non-GMO corn is probably close to non-existent in conventional products.

If the spectrum were truly open, it would be chaos; completely unusable for all but local communications.

Then how does Wifi work?

By not being truly open. WiFi is unlicensed, not unregulated.

Here's the regulations on unlicensed intentional radiators, such as WiFi equipment.

The question of whether or not meals furnished by an employer to an employee are a form of compensation that is taxable income to the employee is neither new, nor difficult.

The issue was determined by litigation before WWII and in 1954 the rule that had evolved was added to the Internal Revenue Code as Section 119:

"There shall be excluded from gross income of an employee the value of any meals ... furnished to him ... by ... his employer for the convenience of the employer, but only if -- ... the meals are furnished on the business premises of the employer ..."

The IRS issued a written interpretation of this provision with several examples almost 50 years ago.

Examples of tax free meals include those furnished a remote construction site camp and those furnished to hospital workers who need to stay on site in order to be available for emergency calls. The following example is not tax free:

"A manufacturing company provides a cafeteria on its premises at which its employees can purchase their lunch. There is no other eating facility located near the company's premises, but the employee can furnish his own meal by bringing his lunch. The amount of compensation which any employee is required to include in gross income is not reduced by the amount charged for the meals, and the meals are not considered to be furnished for the convenience of the employer."

Without more research into the facts and circumstances of Google and its employees, I think that the above example would control their situation, and that the meals would be taxable income to their employees.

BTW: The IRS does not consider coffee, donuts, and soft drinks served at meetings or in break rooms to be taxable income in most situations

These rules are derived from the basic interpretation by the Supreme Court and the IRS of the phrase "income from whatever source derived" used in Amendment XVI to the Constitution and in the Internal Revenue Code. These rules have been consistent during the century since Am. 16 and the Income Tax were adopted.

I have spent some time and effort in researching and reading ideas on tax reform over the years since I first began to study the income tax 40 years ago, and I have not seen anything that would result in a change to this rule that would make meals non-taxable in all circumstances.

The information has been released for public access (it contains nothing classified), but (apparently) not vetted for export control. Many, many so-called "public access" technologies cannot be exported to specific individuals and entities. For example, designs of microprocessors capable of operation at ambient temperatures above 125 C are not classified, but are a controlled technology. See item 3A001.a.2.a in the Commerce Control List.

We may agree on the utility of taking that server off-line, but it's the law, and woe betide the brave soul that ignores US export control regulations.

Since the CAD is currently weaker than the dollar, having declared it in USD instead of CAD would be adverse to the government, which actually makes it easier. (It depends on the exchange rate at the date of export, but based on today.)
(Rulings adverse to the importer entered after Dec 2004 actually HAVE to come from a formal protest.)

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=e7f7df984a01d3c9478867fa0f872497&rgn=div5&view=text&node=19:2.0.1.1.19&idno=19

19CFR 173:
 173.1 Authority to review for error.
Port directors have broad responsibility and authority to review transactions to ensure that the rate and amount of duty assessed on imported merchandise is correct and that the transaction is otherwise in accordance with the law. This authority extends to errors in the construction of a law and to errors adverse to the Government as well as the importer.
[T.D. 70-181, 35 FR 13429, Aug. 22, 1970, as amended by T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46830, Aug. 9, 1979]

 173.2 Transactions which may be reviewed and corrected.
The port director may review transactions for correctness, and take appropriate action under his general authority to correct errors, including those in appraisement where appropriate, at the time of:
(a) Liquidation of an entry;
(b) Voluntary reliquidation completed within 90 days after liquidation;
(c) Voluntary correction of an exaction within 90 days after the exaction was made;
(d) Reliquidation made pursuant to a valid protest covering the particular merchandise as to which a change is in order; or
(e) Modification, pursuant to a valid protest, of a transaction or decision which is neither a liquidation or reliquidation.

 173.4a Correction of clerical error prior to liquidation.
Pursuant to section 520(a)(4), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(a)(4)), the port director may, prior to liquidation of an entry, take appropriate action to correct a clerical error that resulted in the deposit or payment of excess duties, fees, charges, or exactions.
[T.D. 85-123, 50 FR 29957, July 23, 1985]

 162.23 Seizure under section 596(c), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1595a(c)).
(...)
(d) Seizure under 19 U.S.C. 1592. If merchandise is imported, introduced or attempted to be introduced contrary to a provision of law governing its classification or value, and there is no issue of admissibility, such merchandise shall not be seized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1595a(c). Any seizure of such merchandise shall be in accordance with section 1592 (see  162.75 of this chapter).

As I understand the circumstances, on importation he performed what's called 'prior disclosure' - (Â 162.74 Prior disclosure.) identifying orally or in writing to the customs officer of the violation, before an actual investigation was begun. In this case the importer is supposed to tender any potential penalties/duties (in this case, none, since the import value was actually LOWER than declared) .

And finally:
 162.75 Seizures limited under section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.
(a) When authorized. Merchandise may be seized for violation of section 592, Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1592) only if the port director has reasonable cause to believe that a person has violated the statute and that
(1) The person is insolvent,
(2) The person is beyond the jurisdiction of the United States,
(3) Seizure otherwise is essential to protect the revenue, or
(4) Seizure is essential to prevent the introduction of prohibited or restricted merchandise into the Customs territory of the United States.
(b) No seizure if prior disclosure. Under no circumstances shall merchandise be seized under the authority of 19 U.S.C. 1592 if there has been a prior disclosure of the violatio

There's the prosecution of Phil Zimmerman for publishing PGP, the failed attempt to publish the "SkipJack" algorighm with all keys held for law enforcment use, the new "Trusted Computing" toolkit with all keys held by Microsoft with no legal assurance of their privacy against warrant-free access under the "Patriot Act", there's the Patriot Act isself, and then there is US federal law at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9ae4a21068f2bd41d4a5aee843b63ef1&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title15/15cfrv2_02.tpl#730.

It's frightening reading. Widespread domestic security for electronic documents is being sacrificed to permit government access to communications, both foreign and domestic, with and without court order or knowledge of anyone being monitored. The fiber optic taps in AT&T's core data center planted by the NSA were quite real, quite illegal, and the personnel involved have been given immunity.

Quiet, you! You're shattering the hipsters' fantasies!

A partial list of what's allowed in the US:

205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production. ...
(a) As algicide, disinfectants, and sanitizer, including irrigation system cleaning systems.

(1) Alcohols.

(i) Ethanol.

(ii) Isopropanol.

(2) Chlorine materials—For pre-harvest use, residual chlorine levels in the water in direct crop contact or as water from cleaning irrigation systems applied to soil must not exceed the maximum residual disinfectant limit under the Safe Drinking Water Act, except that chlorine products may be used in edible sprout production according to EPA label directions.

(i) Calcium hypochlorite.

(ii) Chlorine dioxide.

(iii) Sodium hypochlorite.

(3) Copper sulfate—for use as an algicide in aquatic rice systems, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to those which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

(4) Hydrogen peroxide.

(5) Ozone gas—for use as an irrigation system cleaner only.

(6) Peracetic acid—for use in disinfecting equipment, seed, and asexually propagated planting material.

(7) Soap-based algicide/demossers.

(8) Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate (CAS #-15630-89-4)—Federal law restricts the use of this substance in food crop production to approved food uses identified on the product label.

(b) As herbicides, weed barriers, as applicable.

(1) Herbicides, soap-based—for use in farmstead maintenance (roadways, ditches, right of ways, building perimeters) and ornamental crops.

(2) Mulches.

(i) Newspaper or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.

(ii) Plastic mulch and covers (petroleum-based other than polyvinyl chloride (PVC)).

(c) As compost feedstocks—Newspapers or other recycled paper, without glossy or colored inks.

(d) As animal repellents—Soaps, ammonium—for use as a large animal repellant only, no contact with soil or edible portion of crop.

(e) As insecticides (including acaricides or mite control).

(1) Ammonium carbonate—for use as bait in insect traps only, no direct contact with crop or soil.

(2) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.

(3) Boric acid—structural pest control, no direct contact with organic food or crops.

(4) Copper sulfate—for use as tadpole shrimp control in aquatic rice production, is limited to one application per field during any 24-month period. Application rates are limited to levels which do not increase baseline soil test values for copper over a timeframe agreed upon by the producer and accredited certifying agent.

(5) Elemental sulfur.

(6) Lime sulfur—including calcium polysulfide.

(7) Oils, horticultural—narrow range oils as dormant, suffocating, and summer oils.

(8) Soaps, insecticidal.

(9) Sticky traps/barriers.

(10) Sucrose octanoate esters (CAS #s—42922-74-7; 58064-47-4)—in accordance with approved labeling.

(f) As insect management. Pheromones.

(g) As rodenticides.

(1) Sulfur dioxide—underground rodent control only (smoke bombs).

(2) Vitamin D3 .

(h) As slug or snail bait. Ferric phosphate (CAS # 10045-86-0).

(i) As plant disease control.

(1) Aqueous potassium silicate (CAS #-1312-76-1)—the silica, used in the manufacture of potassium silicate, must be sourced from naturally occurring sand.

(2) Coppers, fixed—copper hydroxide, coppe