Another technology that would work for this, is a magnetic induction electrical system.
Using the same technology as those wireless charger mats some cell phones use, you can wire an entire house that way..
With a thin layer of sheet metal behind the drywall, you could attach light fixtures to the wall magnetically, without wires -- they draw power through the wall by magnetic induction, the magnetic coil being activated by the fixture being stuck to the wall.
As a bonus, it would be even more impenetrable to radar than spackling mesh is.
Shouldn't be too hard to line the walls and ceiling with metal.
One of the common methods for attaching spackle to drywall is a metal mesh overlay -- the mesh is nailed or glued to the wall, then the spackle adheres to the mesh. As long as the holes in the mesh are smaller than the waves hitting them, the radar is blocked.
Normally the mesh is only used at the join of two sheets of drywall, but there's no reason (other than cost) not to do the whole wall with it,
Additionally, since the mesh is insulated by the wall, you could even rig it as a fully functional Faraday cage.
So don't tell them they're being recorded, inform them that you give your consent that the call may be recorded, so that the CSR won't get into trouble with eavesdropping laws.
The line I use is "I live in a state where all parties to a phone call must consent to a phone call being recorded. Your automated phone system notified me that your company may be recording this call, and I'd hate to have you commit a felony, so I hereby state for the record that this call may be recorded."
Under state law where I live (Washington state), stating that a call may be recorded is sufficient notice to make a recording legal -- anyone who stays on the line after that is consenting.
Violating constitutional rights is a federal crime -- misdemeanor level.
Conspiring to violate rights is a felony level federal crime.
It happens so many times a year that even if the FBI wasn't busy fabricating and busting synthetic terror plots they have no time for anything else, they wouldn't have enough agents to pursue all the cases.
This. If the difference between an allowed toy and a disallowed drone is solely due to the fact that the drone exercises first amendment rights with a camera and the toy lacks the camera, then the FAA is absolutely in violation.
By all means, regulate hazards. But there are limits to government's authority.