Technology risk without safeguards

[Suresh Kalkunte <sskalkunte () gmail com>]

> 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 () netfire net> wrote:

> Matt Harris​
> | Infrastructure Lead Engineer
> 816‑256‑5446
> | Direct
> Looking for something?
> *Helpdesk Portal* <https://help.netfire.net/>
> | *Email Support* <help () 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 () 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.