Some time back, I blogged about paint using nano technology to block cell phone signals. As I observed at the time, paint designed for the sole purpose of passively blocking cell-phone reception may or may not violate the federal law that prevents active signal jamming.
You can now hear me say pretty much the same thing in this piece by Lisa Napoli on Marketplace. In my rather biased opinion, I think Lisa did an excellent job (especially as the product doesn’t actually exist yet and they only had 3 minutes to cover everything).
Stay tuned . . . .
Related Posts:
- by Harold July 24, 2023 Back at the end of June, Canada passed C-18, aka "The Online News Act," a law designed to make Google and Facebook negotiate with news…
- by Harold August 29, 2023 In July, the Media and Democracy Project filed a Petition to Deny the license renewal of Fox29 (WTFX-TV) in Philadelphia. The Petition rests on a…
- by Harold March 15, 2022 It isn't the sultry Regency drama of Bridgerton, the action psycho-drama of Moon Knight, or even the, um, whatever the heck Human Resources is. But…
- by Harold November 8, 2021 5G has been accused a lot of ridiculous things -- causing Covid, causing cancer, causing autism. This article provides a list of 9 separate conspiracy…
- by Harold October 14, 2022 Economist/NYT opinion writer Paul Krugman coined the term "Zombie idea" to describe an idea that, despite being repeatedly refuted with evidence, keeps coming back. Not…
- by Harold July 1, 2022 For most people, the Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency was about environmental policy and what the Environmental Protection Agency can…
