Slashdot Mirror
Laser Painting Could Lead to 25-Year Prison Term
lowy writes "According to this USA Today article, a New Jersey man was charged under federal anti-terrorism laws with shining a laser beam at a jet flying over his home. The Feds arrested him after he flashed a police helicopter searching for the source of the beam. He now faces up to 25 years in prison under Patriot Act charges." It seems to be happening around the country, as our earlier post makes clear.
There is precedent, albeit tenuous, that the only purpose of certain kinds of equipment, or even logic (DeCSS anyone), is to do unlawful and criminal things with it.
Now, I'll grant that there are many reasons for owning laser pointers. Specifically, if you have a cat, it is a patented means of delivering exercise to the feline.
However... With datamining, if you buy diesel fuel, fertilizer, and now a laser pointer, you can end up on a watch list which you could avoid if you did not buy a cat toy.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Considering how windshields on airplanes are on the top of the plane, shining lasers at them probably won't blind them, and they won't crash
Think about this. If the pilot can see the ground from the cockpit (and they can), then someone on the ground can shine a laser in their eye. Your assumption is that the plane was directly overhead. The plane was on approach to a nearby airport and was at very low altitude. One can easily see inside the cockpit from various angles around the plane.
This will likely be settled and the guy will receive minimal if any jail time. But the gov't has to show that it is addressing this issue.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
> But they're talking now about outlawing lasers to the general public?
A scientific colleague of mine told me a story from when he was in grad school that went something like this. For some reason, some general legislative stupidity, the state of Wisconsin considered passing a law banning all devices that emitted electromagnetic radiation. Before the law passed, my colleague's advisor, a physics professor of some repute, was asked to testify at a hearing about the law.
He said to the legislators on the panel, "I'm about to remove from my pocket a device that emits a great deal of electromagnetic radiation, switch it on, and point it at you." The panel was, of course, terrified. He then took out a flashlight. Needless to say, the law didn't pass.
I suspect this laser business will be somewhat similar. Could a laser conceivably be a public danger? Yes. So could hammers, matches, fertilizer, etc. I seriously doubt there's going to be a laser ban.
It does make sense.
15 miles away and 8000 feet means that the plane needs to drop about 1000 feet per minute for each minute that the plane is in the air. Touch down speed for a big plane like that is probably in the 120-200 mph range. That means the 15 mile approach would take 7 1/2 minutes. That's not al ot of time!
Each second of that last 7 1/2 minutes before touch down the plane has to drop at least 15 feet! Each second!
This is a very dangerous time of the flight. For one or both pilots to be blinded at this juncture - or even imparied slighly - could lead to catrosphe. Imagine the pilot is off just slightly in his approach. The plane drop 16 feet per second, instead of his normal plane of 15 feet per second. That would mean the plane would be 450 feet below sea level when it "gets" to the runway (aka, it crashes well before the runway).
Those 8000 feet and 15 miles numbers make perfect sense for a jumbo on approach.
From the article:
She said her client was playing with his young daughter, using the laser's narrow green beam to point at stars and illuminating trees and neighbor's houses.
And shamelessly lifted from another post in this discussion, this http://www.skypointer.net/ link states that
Red laser pointers have grown cheap and ubiquitous, but unfortunately, they are not very effective as sky pointers. In contrast, green laser pointers are very effective because of the eye's greater sensitivity to the 532 nanometer green light. Under dark sky conditions, the beam from a 5 milliwatt green laser pointer creates a dramatic impression, and the beam apparently extends for more than a kilometer.
which supports the former statement.
In short, the guy was pointing out stars to his daughter, he NEVER intended to point it at an airliner (I'd like to see someone with a handheld laser pinpointing an airliner several thousands of meter up). So calling it "assault" is just ridiculous. Picking out this guy also is: supposing the linked site sold any number of units, this means that many people in the US are doing exactly the same, they just didn't hit the one in chance of flashing an airliner miles away AND having the beam deflected into a pilot's eyes. Conclusion: there has been much media attention about lasers hitting an airplane recently so a scapegoat had to be found. He's just one unlucky bastard. Not a criminal. And definately not a terrorist. Why do I hint at scapegoating?
"We need to send a clear message to the public that there is no harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes,"
Justice Department officials said they do not suspect terrorism in any of the cases, but said Banach's arrest shows how seriously they take the matter.
Also, I really disliked this little piece of information:
After the agent switched it on, Banach warned him "not to shine the laser in his eyes because it could blind him," the court documents say.
Let me just say "well DUH!" A 5mW laser (a bit more than the presentation-purpose lasers) are ubiquitous and one shouldn't look straight into those from a few cm away either. This just makes it blatantly obvious this is pure sensationalist "journalism" about a gross injustice, namely picking out one individual, ruining his life, to make a public impression.
ps. If this laser situation should prove potentially dangerous, something SHOULD be done, agreed, but this is just a perversion of justice.
Has this daft law ever been used to deal with an actual, real, evil, acid-spitting terrorist? Ever?
If its coming more or less directly towards you, the apparent velocity goes waay down. And aircraft on approach are not going 600. More like 250.
You don't have to completley 'blind' them, as in burn out their retinas, to be very, very hazardous.
You can try this yourself. Remove the brakes from your car. Drive at high speed, at night, on a crowded road.(Crowded, to simulate the workload of a pilot on approach). Have a friend shine a high power laser into your eyes for a few seconds. (Said friend will probably want to be on an overpass, rather than in the car with you.)
If you live, repeat the exercise a few more times.
Most people would agree with you, there, but what's not obvious is that the defendant is guilty. It's possible that what he says is true, the he and his daughter were out pointing a laser at trees and the sky when the FBI swooped in.
There are two rights issues at stake here, libel and the banning of harmless devices. How would you like for your picture to be published by the USA Today online with a highly incriminating description? Fun, fun, fun online. Second, the whole thing may be a stupid stunt to get you to believe that laser pointers are dangerous and should be controlled like firearms. If distractions really were dangerous, there would be no billboards on public highways.
It's garbage like this that shows how sorry mainstream media is. It's slanted and poorly researched but it has power due to self advertisement and a perception of proper editing. Understanding these issues is a critical part of your ability to defend your rights online.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
It was mostly Hoover and the FBI who identified the "Communist sympathizers". McCarthy asked them for information. When McCarthy started attacking the president (Eisenhower) and the US Army, in 1954, Hoover felt he would be threatened and stopped providing information.
Joe just thought it was a good story and a way to get some attention. It WAS a circus, and a HUGE waste of resources.
Also, McCarthy was the fourth member in the history of the US Senate to be censured, in December of 1954.
Did you not notice that the terrorists who hijacked the planes on 9/11 didn't exactly value the life they might have after committing the act? Why would any terrorist be discouraged by some yahoo getting sent up for something this lame? You realize someone willing to give their life to kill a bunch of innocents isn't going to think twice about a possibly stiff prison sentence, don't you?
This guy was doing a stupid, possibly dangerous thing. It wasn't terrorism, however, and a multi-decade prison sentence isn't going to discourage actual terrorists (though it will hopefully discourage other idiots who don't have terroristic intent to pull similar crap - though I somehow doubt that too).