Technology risk without safeguards

Wed Nov 4 20:48:48 UTC 2020

> I'm a bit confused as to what this message
> is trying to ultimately get at
>
The superior tactical advantage of causing intentional harm with high power
beam-forming RF and escape detection. Meaning, assault with powerful RF
leaves a victim and bystander unaware of being attacked and my intention is
to mobilize interest to plug the gap in safeguards.

> it should be noted that folks who work
> with RF... well aware of the necessary
> precautions and take them on a day to day
> basis when working with this equipment...
>
At an employer where I developed Wi-Fi based SOHO device, an adjacent group
was testing Line of Sight transceivers. Nobody warned me of the inclement
health (a general physician in 2007 suspected cancer looking at a blood
test) from close quarters exposure to the side lobes emanating from the
microwave radio.

> ...let's hear that out specifically and I'm all
> for working to rectify that.
>
Applicable to workplaces pertinent to the NANOG community and elsewhere,
there is need for publicising policy on curbing harassment using powerful
RF along the lines of curbing gender/race based harassment. Why publicise?
awareness among non-RF professionals of the leading health symptoms
expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF/X-ray voids the element of
surprise on an unsuspecting victim.

> The former is relatively difficult to do by
> virtue of the amount of power necessary.
>
For instance, RF from Magnetron salvaged from a kitchen heating appliance
focused using a horn antenna when positioned on a roof renders the person
one floor above within 2 meters effective range of harm.

> Quite basically, there are much easier ways
> to go about injuring someone if that's what
> you want to do
>
Without a doubt. However, other methods are very well handled by existing
forensic tests to minimize repeat offence. With negative use of RF on
humans, the perpetrator is fearless of law.

> jam RF communications has existed for as
> long as RF communication has, and the
> knowledge of how to accomplish it is
> relatively widespread
>
Very good point, the FCC has enforcable regulations and the DoJ armed with
statutes to curb jamming electronic devices. However jamming a human is not
yet present.

> ...but lacks specificity with regard to what
> safeguards...
>
Thanks for asking. Safeguards I can think of:
- Anti-harassment policy diplayed at a workplace, hospital, hotel etc. to
raise awareness of failing health post-overexposure to harmful RF/X-ray
(EMF).
- Diagnostic/forensic tests that identify biomarkers expressed
post-overexposure to harmful EMF.
- Forensic tests that make visible transformation of paint and characterize
the alteration of microbiome exposed to harmful EMF.
- Detectors worn by firefighters^*^, civil law enforcement, military and
outdoor wireless developers and field technicians.

^*^ Curtis S.D. Massey. The Facts and Dangers of Rooftop Transmitting
Devices on High-Rise
Buildings. Mar 31st, 2005.
https://www.firehouse.com/safety-health/article/10513827/the-facts-and-dangers-of-rooftop-transmitting-devices-on-highrise-buildings
.

On Wednesday, November 4, 2020, Matt Harris <matt at netfire.net> wrote:

> Matt Harris
> | Infrastructure Lead Engineer
> 816‑256‑5446
> | Direct
> Looking for something?
> *Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/>
> | *Email Support* <help at netfire.net>
> | *Billing Portal* <https://my.netfire.net/>
> We build and deliver end‑to‑end IT solutions.
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2020 at 10:48 AM Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I believe the below described method of causing intentional (1) damage to
>> equipment in data centers and (2) physical injury to a person at the
>> workplace is on-topic for the NANOG community, if not, I look forward to
>> your feedback. As a software developer who has subscribed to the NANOG
>> mailing list for a number of years, I post this note relying on
>> intellectual honesty that I have had the opportunity to observe since
>> 1996-97.
>>
>> The below described technology risk is applicable to
>> computing/communication equipment rendered vulnerable by Intentional
>> Electromagnetic Interference (jamming an electronic device) and the risk of
>> health sabotage affecting people (jamming a human) managing the Internet
>> infrastructure enabled by intentional application of powerful
>> radiofrequency fields (RF) emitted by re-purposed components salvaged from
>> a kitchen heating appliance (Magnetron) or from an outdoor high gain/power
>> Line of sight transceiver (unidirectional microwave radio) which has a harm
>> causing range up to 25 meters (estimated using a Spectral Power Density
>> calculator like www.hintlink.com/power_density.htm).
>>
>> This risk from mis-application of powerful RF is from human operated or
>> IoT apparatus** with an avenue of approch from (a) subterrain placement
>> aided by a compact/mini directional horizontal drilling machine (eg.
>> principle of placing a stent in the heart) and/or (b) strategic placement
>> in an obscure over-surface location to maximize negative impact on the
>> target of opportunity.
>>
>> With building materials or ground offer insufficient* protection to block
>> the passage of powerful RF and the absence of diagnostic/forensic tests to
>> detect biomarkers expressed post-overexposure to harmful RF  (combination
>> of RF frequency, Spectral Power Density/Specific Absorption Rate incident
>> on a person and duration of exposure), intentional damage to electronic
>> equipment and people is at present unrestricted.
>>
>> The purpose of bringing this method of exploting technology to your
>> attention is with an interest to build the momentum for ushering in the
>> much needed safeguards in this context.
>>
>
> While I'm a bit confused as to what this message is trying to ultimately
> get at, it should be noted that folks who work with RF communications
> equipment and other EM emitters which are strong enough to cause harm to a
> person are generally well aware of the necessary precautions and take them
> on a day to day basis when working with this equipment. If there's evidence
> that some part of our industry is ignoring or failing to train their team
> members on safety best practices, then let's hear that out specifically and
> I'm all for working to rectify that.
>
> On the other hand, the post seems to hint at intentionally using high
> powered RF to inflict intentional harm on a person or to jam communications
> signals. The former is relatively difficult to do by virtue of the amount
> of power necessary. Quite basically, there are much easier ways to go about
> injuring someone if that's what you want to do. Of course, intentionally
> injuring another person is a criminal act in just about every jurisdiction.
> As far as the latter goes, the ability to jam RF communications has existed
> for as long as RF communication has, and the knowledge of how to accomplish
> it is relatively widespread. It is also illegal in the US and most likely
> many other jurisdictions as well, and in the US the FCC has enforcement
> power with the ability to levy some pretty hefty fines on anyone who does
> so, even inadvertently though negligent practices.
>
> The post states that their intention is to "build the momentum for
> ushering in the much needed safeguards in this context." but lacks
> specificity with regard to what safeguards they propose beyond the
> legal/regulatory ones that already exist, so I'm not sure what more can
> really be said here.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20201105/3f2d77a9/attachment.html>