[Cryptography] jammers, nor not

[Ben Tasker]

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 1:36 AM, Henry Baker <hbaker1 at pipeline.com> wrote:

>
> I'm not a lawyer, but I understand that there are always implicit
> exceptions to every law -- e.g., to save a life (perhaps your own), etc.
> Remember, the prosecution still has to convince a judge and a jury, so if
> the situation is egregious enough, a jury may well nullify.
>
> I'm expecting consumer drones to test jury nullification very soon.  I
> suspect that if someone takes a shotgun to their neighbor's peeping drone,
> most juries will stand up and applaud, so long as the buckshot doesn't land
> in their yard.
>
>
Already happened (well, it was a judge rather than a Jury) -
https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/judge-rules-man-had-right-to-shoot-down-drone-over-his-house/
- specifically, he dismissed the case against the shotgun wielding
neighbour because the drone was an invasion of privacy.

That case isn't over yet though, as the drone op's then filed a federal
suit -
https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/01/man-whose-drone-was-shot-down-sues-shotgun-wielding-neighbor-for-1500/
- not sure anything's come of that yet though (or I've missed it)



-- 
Ben Tasker
https://www.bentasker.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20170228/61807ef1/attachment.html>