|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cell Phone Tech Discussion > July 2007 > Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Legality of: Cell-Phone signal blocking
|
|
| Straydog 2007-07-18, 10:33 pm |
| | |
|
| In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0707182214540.478@panix3.panix.com>,
Straydog <asd@panix.com> wrote:
> Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my heart-attack-car-
> accident-emergency phone.
>
> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal, nothing
> unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones. And, people have no
> courtesy, consideration, or forsight.
>
> I think the idea that it is OK with THEM to force me to listen to their
> conversations, their ringtones while they are on MY property, or in my
> presence without my permission, is a personal offense against me.
Straydog,
You may be of a 'certain age' as I am, and I am often bemused with all
you speak of.
I was watching "The Devil wears Prada" the other night. There was a line
in the movie (and very true) where the Meryl Streep character states
something to the effect that the Target/Ross/JCPenney/Sears clothes that
the assistant was wearing were a direct retooling for the masses of
former fashion trends that the high fashion industry (she) had created.
So true.
Cell phone are exactly the same. No one would care about cameras in
phones had the Japanese youth culture not embraced it as they ddid a few
years ago.
Cell phone mfrs had a tough time selling them to US market -took a
couple years of hard sell (and huge ad budgets) to finally get youth
market here on board.
If I were you, I'd buy one of those prepaid emergency phones you see in
back of Sunset Magazine. These guys hit the nail on the head with the
niche market they are targeting- a phone with simple features and large
display.
The irony is that these phones will come back in a few years as hip
retro accessories, but then again today, little is truly new, only
recycled (don't get me started about music - you'll never see another
Doors)
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| Straydog wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007, Prof. Franz Blaha wrote:
>=20
lf[color=darkred]
e[color=darkred]
hat[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
,[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
dy[color=darkred]
em[color=darkred]
gs[color=darkred]
me[color=darkred]
ely[color=darkred]
cal[color=darkred]
t[color=darkred]
>=20
> OK, I'll start this thread. Cell phones are nice and convenient and=20
> being used too much by the "me" generation who have come to the point=20
> where they can't live without "keeping in touch" with all the members o=
f=20
> their social butterfly community and doing this in all kinds of=20
> inappropriate settings (eg. busy traffic where cell phone distraction i=
s=20
> known to be a factor in accidents, movie theaters, church services,=20
> restaurants, and just recently at my barber shop where a guy carried on=
=20
> his commercial business in a loud
> tone of voice so everyone heard his side and after he hung up the damne=
d
> thing rang and it took him five minutes to get it out of his pocket aga=
in
> so we all had to listen to that annoying jingle all that time.
>=20
> Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my heart-attack-car=
-
> accident-emergency phone.
>=20
> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal,=20
> nothing unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones. And, people have=
=20
> no courtesy, consideration, or forsight.
Here's a novel use of a cell phone - cleaning the gene pool.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3D3378025
>=20
> I think the idea that it is OK with THEM to force me to listen to their=
=20
> conversations, their ringtones while they are on MY property, or in my =
> presence without my permission, is a personal offense against me.
>=20
> And, what would my recourse/greivance be? Legally? Could I file charges=
=20
> of disturbing the peace?
>=20
> Cell phone jammers can be found using search engines and I gather that =
> law enforcement agencies use them, legally or illegally, in the course =
> of law enforcement and I'll bet that they worry more about their missio=
n=20
> than the FCC's laws. There appear to be commercial cell phone jammers o=
f=20
> high power and also used in corporate settings to deter industrial=20
> spying. Do they have licenses? Apparently the military uses them to=20
> attempt to thwart cell phone mediated IED explosions/bombs.
I'm aware of two law enforcement agencies using cell jammers. Just=20
before serving a no-knock warrant, they'll engage a mobile cell jammer=20
to blind the area so the "good eyes" are left with playing pocket pool.
>=20
> Or, perhaps we should ask if anyone knows if there have been any cases =
> of person or persons using a cell phone jammer being caught and=20
> prosecuted (apparently by the FCC?)? After all, there is sold IRS data =
> that show that significant fractions of tax dogers (25% to 75%,=20
> depending on methods) never get prosecuted by the IRS.
>=20
> Not that I'm advocating broad scale disobedience of the law, but an art=
icle
> in the WSJ years ago said that it was OK for a jury to find 'not guilty=
'
> in a clear case of guilt if the broken law was a bad law to begin with.=
=20
> In other words, there are bad laws out there. Prohibition never worked,=
=20
> so it was eventually withdrawn, too.
Yes "jury nullification" is sometimes used when the jury is sympathetic=20
to the defense. Maybe some day, this will be tested.
[color=darkred]
>=20
>=20
--=20
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
|
| Hello All,
Thank you so much for all the interesting replys. I appreciate the numerous
responses.
Please allow me to respond to my original post.
I am curious if some of the "cell-phone jamming devices "actually work as
the various manufacturers say they do.
I have seen myriad different devices advertised for sale claiming various
areas of effective attenuation for diameters ranging from , some claim 30,
50 meters and more.
Does anyone have any firsthand experience with any of these devises and
which ones if so?
I of course would want this information for educational purposes only, as I
understand they are illegal to operate in my country, the US.
If anyone has any first hand experience with these devices and would be kind
enough to share the type, brand name model or whatever you wish, it would be
appreciated.
Again, let me thank you for all the responses, and I apologize for any
breach of netiquette in advance.
Sincerely,
bc
meters,etc
"Kurt" <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote in message
news:labolide-22A85D.19393118072007@news.giganews.com...e
> In article <Pine.NEB.4.64.0707182214540.478@panix3.panix.com>,
> Straydog <asd@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> Straydog,
>
> You may be of a 'certain age' as I am, and I am often bemused with all
> you speak of.
>
> I was watching "The Devil wears Prada" the other night. There was a line
> in the movie (and very true) where the Meryl Streep character states
> something to the effect that the Target/Ross/JCPenney/Sears clothes that
> the assistant was wearing were a direct retooling for the masses of
> former fashion trends that the high fashion industry (she) had created.
>
> So true.
>
> Cell phone are exactly the same. No one would care about cameras in
> phones had the Japanese youth culture not embraced it as they ddid a few
> years ago.
>
> Cell phone mfrs had a tough time selling them to US market -took a
> couple years of hard sell (and huge ad budgets) to finally get youth
> market here on board.
>
> If I were you, I'd buy one of those prepaid emergency phones you see in
> back of Sunset Magazine. These guys hit the nail on the head with the
> niche market they are targeting- a phone with simple features and large
> display.
>
> The irony is that these phones will come back in a few years as hip
> retro accessories, but then again today, little is truly new, only
> recycled (don't get me started about music - you'll never see another
> Doors)
>
> --
> To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| BC wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Thank you so much for all the interesting replys. I appreciate the numerous
> responses.
>
> Please allow me to respond to my original post.
>
> I am curious if some of the "cell-phone jamming devices "actually work as
> the various manufacturers say they do.
> I have seen myriad different devices advertised for sale claiming various
> areas of effective attenuation for diameters ranging from , some claim 30,
> 50 meters and more.
> Does anyone have any firsthand experience with any of these devises and
> which ones if so?
>
> I of course would want this information for educational purposes only, as I
> understand they are illegal to operate in my country, the US.
>
> If anyone has any first hand experience with these devices and would be kind
> enough to share the type, brand name model or whatever you wish, it would be
> appreciated.
>
> Again, let me thank you for all the responses, and I apologize for any
> breach of netiquette in advance.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> bc
This is the one an acquaintence uses to cover an open area roughly equal
to two city blocks at half power. On concert nights, he cranks it up to
cover the entire area.
http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Y400.htm
--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
|
| I don't think I would need that much power!
How about the RX9000 by the same company. It claims to be the most powerful
handheld available.
Offers up to 30 meters of coverage, should be enough to nail that idiot
driving in front of you, that is if it were to be used at all, which it
won't be since it is illegal........
"Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
news:139tmotr25d9m18
@corp.supernews.com...
> BC wrote:
>
>
> This is the one an acquaintence uses to cover an open area roughly equal
> to two city blocks at half power. On concert nights, he cranks it up to
> cover the entire area.
>
> http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Y400.htm
>
>
> --
> jer
> email reply - I am not a 'ten'
| |
|
| BC wrote:
> I don't think I would need that much power!
>
> How about the RX9000 by the same company. It claims to be the most powerful
> handheld available.
>
> Offers up to 30 meters of coverage, should be enough to nail that idiot
> driving in front of you, that is if it were to be used at all, which it
> won't be since it is illegal........
<snip>
The idiot calling 911?
--
Notan
| |
| Bert Hyman 2007-07-19, 10:33 am |
| asd@panix.com (Straydog) wrote in
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707182214540.478@panix3.panix.com:
> I can think of no drug, no behavior, no alcohol, nothing illegal,
> nothing unhealthy that is as addicting as cell phones.
And yet, they have no effect on you.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
| |
| Russell Patterson 2007-07-19, 10:33 am |
| On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:15:29 -0400, Straydog <asd@panix.com> wrote:
>
>OK, I'll start this thread. Cell phones are nice and convenient and being
>used too much by the "me" generation who have come to the point where they
>can't live without "keeping in touch" with all the members of their social
>butterfly community and doing this in all kinds of inappropriate settings
>(eg. busy traffic where cell phone distraction is known to be a factor in
>accidents, movie theaters, church services, restaurants, and just recently
>at my barber shop where a guy carried on his commercial business in a loud
>tone of voice so everyone heard his side and after he hung up the damned
>thing rang and it took him five minutes to get it out of his pocket again
>so we all had to listen to that annoying jingle all that time.
>
>Yes, I have one. It is always turned off. I call it my heart-attack-car-
>accident-emergency phone.
>
I just hope that when you find the need to use your heart-attack-car-
accident-emergency phone, someone else is jamming you! Think about
it. I am in agreement that there are some people who should never be
on the phone while driving. OTOH there are people out there who can
handle it, and need to use it to continue to make a living.
For example, I am a service engineer who happens to work on MRI
systems. How would you like to be the patient in one of those systems
when something occurs, that is a simple phone fix, and the person with
the knowledge to fix it cannot be reached because some
holier-than-thou jerk with a jammer is preventing it? It's ok. Even
though you've been injected with the proper contrast agent, you can
always come back later and have it injected again. If you're lucky
the delay won't be life threatening.
There are other people like me who work on CT systems. There are no
trauma centers in the USA these days which does not have at least one
CT close by. Then there are the people who work on systems that are
in operating rooms. How would like to have to be opened up a second
time because of a delay in getting a phone fix?
Jammers can be used effectively to block signals that might set off
explosive devices and that I agree with, even if lives might be put at
risk in the process. But that decision should be in the hands of
those that have the responsibility to make the decisions for the
safety of the general public, not someone who is tired of driving
behind some teenage girl trying to talk on the phone and put on makeup
while navigating through traffic.
| |
| Straydog 2007-07-19, 10:33 am |
|
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Bert Hyman wrote:
> asd@panix.com (Straydog) wrote in
> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707182214540.478@panix3.panix.com:
>
>
> And yet, they have no effect on you.
Thousands of obnoxious ringing tones in public, hearing one side of a
conversation I don't want to hear, being forced to put up with the crap
and how it interferes with my life/shopping/etc...has definitely had a
negative effect on me.
One possible counter-measure would be to take out a small soap bar plastic
box and hold it up to my ear, stand next to the jerk, and start carrying
on an imaginary conversation in as loud a tone of voice as possible using
variations on the following text: "Yes, I'm in a public place and
disturbing all of the people around me, distracting them, and being
distracted by this other person on their cell phone. Um, what was that you
were saying? My signal is breaking up, then I'll repeat myself...."
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
>
| |
| Bert Hyman 2007-07-19, 10:33 am |
| asd@panix.com (Straydog) wrote in
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707191000530.28959@panix3.panix.com:
> One possible counter-measure would be to take out a small soap bar
> plastic box and hold it up to my ear, stand next to the jerk, and
> start carrying on an imaginary conversation in as loud a tone of
> voice as possible using variations on the following text: "Yes, I'm
> in a public place and disturbing all of the people around me,
> distracting them, and being distracted by this other person on
> their cell phone. Um, what was that you were saying? My signal is
> breaking up, then I'll repeat myself....
Yes, indeed.
You do that.
Tell us how it works out for you.
Do you also drive in the left lane of highways to prevent speeding?
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
| |
| Straydog 2007-07-19, 10:33 am |
|
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007, Russell Patterson wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:15:29 -0400, Straydog <asd@panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> I just hope that when you find the need to use your heart-attack-car-
> accident-emergency phone, someone else is jamming you!
You are a big jerk.
Think about
> it. I am in agreement that there are some
Most people should NOT be ever using a cell phone WHILE driving.
people who should never be
> on the phone while driving. OTOH there are people out there who can
> handle it, and need to use it to continue to make a living.
The vast majority of cell phone use (more than 99.9%) is for non-essential
social chit-chat and the human race got along fine up until just recently.
> For example, I am a service engineer who happens to work on MRI
> systems. How would you like to be the patient in one of those systems
> when something occurs, that is a simple phone fix, and the person with
> the knowledge to fix it cannot be reached because some
> holier-than-thou jerk with a jammer is preventing it?
Because you guys can't think of a better way to deal with a technical
problem, in a limited location, where probably no one else is around to be
disturbed by senseless, purposeless, idle chatter?
You can go jump in the lake.
It's ok. Even
> though you've been injected with the proper contrast agent, you can
> always come back later and have it injected again. If you're lucky
> the delay won't be life threatening.
> There are other people like me who work on CT systems. There are no
> trauma centers in the USA these days which does not have at least one
> CT close by. Then there are the people who work on systems that are
> in operating rooms. How would like to have to be opened up a second
> time because of a delay in getting a phone fix?
>
> Jammers can be used effectively to block signals that might set off
> explosive devices and that I agree with, even if lives might be put at
> risk in the process. But that decision should be in the hands of
> those that have the responsibility to make the decisions for the
> safety of the general public, not someone who is tired of driving
> behind some teenage girl trying to talk on the phone and put on makeup
> while navigating through traffic.
>
| |
| Russell Patterson 2007-07-19, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 10:10:40 -0400, Straydog <asd@panix.com> wrote:
>
>You are a big jerk.
Excellent retort! Very thought provoking! How long did it take you
to come up with that one?
>
> Think about
>
>Most people should NOT be ever using a cell phone WHILE driving.
Who is going to decide who can and who can't? You? You would never
notice the people who drive and talk on the cell phone successfully,
because they do not get your attention. Most have hands free devices
so you'd never notice, even if you looked directly at them. If you
are driving around looking to see if people are on the phone then you
are a bigger hazard to driving than most of them are.
>
> people who should never be
>
>The vast majority of cell phone use (more than 99.9%) is for non-essential
>social chit-chat and the human race got along fine up until just recently.
I agree that a large percentage of conversations is unnecessary, but I
doubt it is as large as you say. Who makes the determination? You
again? Maybe most of them are not life threatening situations, but
many of them are situations where it saves money in fuel consumption,
time and more. (fuel consumption in that a lot of it might be wasted
looking for a pay phone - which is much harder to do nowadays)
>
>
>Because you guys can't think of a better way to deal with a technical
>problem, in a limited location, where probably no one else is around to be
>disturbed by senseless, purposeless, idle chatter?
Do you want to pay 2 or 3 times the cost for a procedure so that
everytime one is performed there is a service engineer on hand? That
would be great for me, since I am sure my salary would go up, due to
demand!
>
>You can go jump in the lake.
Another thoughtful response. Sorry I can't do that. My cell doesn't
work under water. That might be a good place for you then, wouldn't
it?
| |
| prc2u1 2007-07-19, 12:33 pm |
| Phone users need to CONSIDER OTHERS! I sit in a restaurant to relax and eat
dinner, instead I have to hear a man fighting with someone assumed to be his
wife, and he is not soft about it. The same problem is true of driving.
Everyone only cares when they will arrive and dont worry that they just cut
me off to be 10 feet ahead of me. THE WORLD IS GETTING MORE RUDE EACH DAY!
"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99725D12C369
4VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
> asd@panix.com (Straydog) wrote in
> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707191000530.28959@panix3.panix.com:
>
>
> Yes, indeed.
>
> You do that.
>
> Tell us how it works out for you.
>
> Do you also drive in the left lane of highways to prevent speeding?
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | bert@iphouse.com
| |
| Russell Patterson 2007-07-19, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:00:29 GMT, "prc2u1" <prc2u1@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
>Phone users need to CONSIDER OTHERS! I sit in a restaurant to relax and eat
>dinner, instead I have to hear a man fighting with someone assumed to be his
>wife, and he is not soft about it. The same problem is true of driving.
>Everyone only cares when they will arrive and dont worry that they just cut
>me off to be 10 feet ahead of me. THE WORLD IS GETTING MORE RUDE EACH DAY!
The last guy that cut me off wasn't on a cell phone. he was just an
XXXXXXX!
>
>"Bert Hyman" <bert@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns99725D12C369
4VeebleFetzer@127.0.0.1...
>
| |
| Andreas Wenzel 2007-07-19, 12:33 pm |
| "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
> news:139tmotr25d9m18
@corp.supernews.com...
BC wrote:
[color=darkred]
> I don't think I would need that much power!
> [...]
So your educational purposes can be served with less power?
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-07-19, 3:33 pm |
| At 19 Jul 2007 10:05:41 -0400 Straydog wrote:
> Thousands of obnoxious ringing tones in public, hearing one side of a
> conversation I don't want to hear, being forced to put up with the
> crap and how it interferes with my life/shopping/etc...has definitely
> had a negative effect on me...
"Trollin' trollin' trollin'/ Keep them crossposts rollin'/
Keep your readers foamin'/
Rawhide..."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| That's the one....the same one putting everyones life at risk because their
brain is too small to do two things at once, and is too stupid to pull over
and make his/her all so important phone call.
The same one sitting for a full 90 seconds at a green light, while busy
sharing the latest Paris Hilton story with their idiot friends, not smart
enough to realize the light has changed.
The same one cruising along at 55 mph in the fast lane, causing other cars
to swerve around them on the right side,
oblivious to everything in front,back or anywhere else.
Yes, that is the one!
I doubt if it is a 911 call.
"Notan" < notan@ddressthatcanb
espammed> wrote in message
news:d8qdnXH09MiXeAP
bnZ2dnUVZ_tfinZ2d@gi
ganews.com...
> BC wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> The idiot calling 911?
>
> --
> Notan
| |
| Scott 2007-07-20, 10:33 am |
| "BC" <billchapman@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:C8adnW0WjNjvIT3
bnZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@ad
elphia.com:
> That's the one....the same one putting everyones life at risk because
> their brain is too small to do two things at once, and is too stupid
> to pull over and make his/her all so important phone call.
> The same one sitting for a full 90 seconds at a green light, while
> busy sharing the latest Paris Hilton story with their idiot friends,
> not smart enough to realize the light has changed.
> The same one cruising along at 55 mph in the fast lane, causing other
> cars to swerve around them on the right side,
> oblivious to everything in front,back or anywhere else.
> Yes, that is the one!
> I doubt if it is a 911 call.
>
My my- judgmentalism at its finest. What a society- all about "you" and
screw everybody else. Real mature.
| |
| GeekBoy 2007-07-20, 3:33 pm |
|
"Straydog" <asd@panix.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.0707190954250.28959@panix3.panix.com...
>
>
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, BC wrote:
>
>
> You might have a difficult time getting credible reports. After all, many
> who might use a jammer might not want to self-incriminate themselves or
> reveal themselves to just everyone.
>
>
> Not firsthand, but one newspaper article I read years ago said some pastor
> in a church got pissed off with cps going off during services and he put
> in a jammer, told all of the congregation about it, and nobody came to
> arrest him and he said no more cp problems. And, I doubt if those
> irresponsible-inconsiderate members who came to church with their cps
> turned on actually changed their ways.
>
That was, I beleive, in Mexico that happened.
Very few laws there, and the ones they do have are not enforced very often.
[color=darkred]
>
> Ohhhhhhh....of course we believe you!
>
> as I
>
> The key idea is what are the enforcement patterns like, what are the
> chances of prosecution, and chances of punishment/penalty/etc/etc/.
>
>
> I have a feeling that they really do work, and are being used in many
> circumstances (eg. anti-industrial spying, anti-cp at classified defense
> instalations, and to foil IED control in Iraq).
>
>
> No problem as far as I'm concerned.
>
| |
| Simon Templar 2007-07-21, 7:33 am |
| Andreas Wenzel wrote:
> "Jer" <gdunn@airmail.ten> wrote in message
>
> BC wrote:
>
>
> So your educational purposes can be served with less power?
TOTALLY ILLEGAL in Australia as well. Short of the Military having the
capability I don't see any reason for the use of blocking!
--
The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
belong to.
73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
<http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/c...LIENT_NO=157452>
|
|
|
|
|