If there are counterweapons against traffic radar, why not against the other technical state assaults against civil liberties?
Since around the 1980s, we have gradually got enormously new technical possibilities, which have given us new liberties. Just think of the mobile phone and the computer plus internet, both of them internationally usable. These liberties for the citizens have caught by surprise the state's criminal control freaks, it appears.
As the state's representatives, criminal as they are, didn't wish to let this situation stand, they figured out technical counterweapons by which not only to undo the new liberties. No, they used the situation and introduced at the same time secretly new controle mechanisms. Examples:
1 Each wired telephone is today also an eavesdropping device for the appartment or the office where it stands, no matter if a phone conversation is going on.2 Each mobile telephone is today also an eavesdropping and location device, even if it appears switched off, for they can be remotely switched on, including the microphone, without the user noticing it.
3 Small bugs consisting of a GPS and a mobile phone module and hidden somewhere at the car make it possible for the state's criminal surveillors to continuously follow a vehicle on a digital map.4 Dernier cri seem to become small and noiseless drones, which are to replace the slightly too big and noisy helicopters, which the criminal state still uses today to carry out investigations with a military-style threatening background.
I wouldn't know that the citizen had given the criminal politicians permission to introduce such practices. The alleged checks thorugh judges exist probably on paper only. In reality, naked arbitrariness will be the rule. Like in the case of immigration, also here it is high time that the citizens defend themselves against the criminal state. Technical defence measures are needed preventing the state-sponsored measures. Examples, same numbering as above:
1 An additional module recognises the eavesdropping attempt and generates an ear-deafening sound for the unauthorised listener.2 An additional module recognises the attempt to remotely switch on the mobile telephone, preventing it.
3 A small jamming transmitter covering the GPS and mobile phone frquencies within close range (several feet around the car) prevents following the vehicle's course. Another device would allow to find the bug.4 A radar set recognises drones, indicates them and permits the user to shoot them down through small missiles. The missiles ought to be sufficiently powerful to also be used against helicopters. The pilots' death is acceptable, because criminal state-sponsored acting towards the citizen must be prevented at all cost. The pilots are free to refuse such criminal missions, instead of obeyingly accomplish them.
Who could develop such weapons? Primarily the established businesses in this field. But these are under such tight control through the criminal state that we probably cannot expect much of them. What remains are electronically gifted people of all ages who can establish their own production. Sales don't have to run via an official business.