|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cellular phones topics > July 2005 > Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer (no lectures or legal opions please!)
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 |
Where to Buy a Cellular Phone Jammer (no lectures or legal opions please!)
|
|
| Kathleen Carmody 2005-06-25, 4:55 pm |
|
(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
| |
| wkearney99 2005-06-25, 10:55 pm |
| You may not want them but you're gonna get them.
"Kathleen Carmody" < councilmembercarmody
@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote in
message news:Ma2dnax9_uCdOyD
fRVnyjw@skypoint.com...
quote:
>
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2005-06-25, 10:55 pm |
| In article <42BDAA6E.9232A83C@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com>
wrote:
quote:
>
> Fine, no jammer lectures.
>
> But, I must say that you're not very smart to use your real
> e-mail address, in attempting to procure illegal equipment.
It's illegal to use, not illegal to own.
Maybe she wants to take one apart and look at it.
| |
| Dubya 2005-06-25, 10:55 pm |
| http://search.ebay.com/ _W0QQsassZg.../>
adgetsdotnet
These are from UK, but have been reviewed to work well. Not too likely to
find a US source, unless you know someone who works IT in a Hospital or
something like that.
"Kathleen Carmody" < councilmembercarmody
@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote in
message news:Ma2dnax9_uCdOyD
fRVnyjw@skypoint.com...
quote:
>
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2005-06-25, 10:55 pm |
| In article <42BDCED8.C0F5FBC5@ddress.com>, Notan <notan@ddress.com>
wrote:
quote:
> The problem is, if Kathleen Carmody really posted this request,
> and there are any cellular issues at http://ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us/,
> who do ya think they're gonna look to for answers?
If it's like the rest of the cellular world, they're going to look right
at the provider. Because none of them can seem to get it right.
| |
| Steven Banks 2005-06-26, 6:55 am |
| In this "I'll sue your XXX off" day and age... let me predict what will
happen.
They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices. Then
all of a sudden, people start to wonder why no one is getting any service in
THAT building, yet a few feet, yards away they get crystal clear reception.
Then later as everything plays out, someone will need to make or receive
that ONE emergency call... the ONE call that really is a life or death
matter, and they can't! Here come the suits against the person responsible
for using the unit and the city government.
I think people will eventually figure out why not one person can make or
receive a call in that building. The rest will be history or should I say
herstory.
Just a guess,
Steve Banks
| |
|
| In article < Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVny
jw@skypoint.com>,
councilmembercarmody
@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us says...
quote:
>
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>
>
might try this guy if he is still in business, according to the
dates of the documents he still has a few days left....
http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1622A1.html
| |
| Jim Seymour 2005-06-26, 4:55 pm |
| In article <MPG. 1d2852e49b5ec23f9896
a0@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
djk <djk@spam.operamail.com> writes:
quote:
> In article < Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVny
jw@skypoint.com>,
> councilmembercarmody
@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us says...
Gee, for anybody with a lick damn of sense, that would be a big clue,
right off.
[vbcol=darkred]
> might try this guy if he is still in business, according to the
> dates of the documents he still has a few days left....
> http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2005/DA-05-1622A1.html
Excerpt:
"If, after receipt of this citation, you violate the
Communications Act or the Commission's rules in any manner
described herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures
not to exceed $11,000 for each such violation or each day of a
continuing violation."
I guess his commercial endeavor's continued viability depends on
whether it can tolerate $99,000 per day of fines ;). (Although I'm
not sure I'm reading that right. Recalling my studies, I had
*thought* fines under the Communications Act were limited to $10,0000
per violation [at the time--looks like it went up], regardless of how
long it went on. Actually, $10,000 or time in the slammer, IIRC.)
I bet Ms. Brooklyn-Center-Council-Member Kathleen Carmody's
constituency will be just *thrilled* with her over *that* expense.
One imagines $11,000 per day of FCC fines is a pretty decent chunk of
change for a municipality of only 29,000 residents.
--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2005-06-26, 4:55 pm |
| In article <2-KdnQ9kg-NwriPfRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
"Steven Banks" < roadkingman_FINGER_@
hotmail.com> wrote:
quote:
> They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices. Then
> all of a sudden, people start to wonder why no one is getting any service in
> THAT building, yet a few feet, yards away they get crystal clear reception.
Business as usual from the cell phone companies, actually.
| |
|
| In article < 11bt796hh8c04af@corp
.supernews.com>,
jseymour@LinxNet.com says...
quote:
> I guess his commercial endeavor's continued viability depends on
> whether it can tolerate $99,000 per day of fines ;). (Although I'm
> not sure I'm reading that right. Recalling my studies, I had
> *thought* fines under the Communications Act were limited to $10,0000
> per violation [at the time--looks like it went up], regardless of how
> long it went on. Actually, $10,000 or time in the slammer, IIRC.)
>
> I bet Ms. Brooklyn-Center-Council-Member Kathleen Carmody's
> constituency will be just *thrilled* with her over *that* expense.
> One imagines $11,000 per day of FCC fines is a pretty decent chunk of
> change for a municipality of only 29,000 residents.
>
>
>
thing is there are people selling the equipment in the United
States, and Canada. As far as this specific vendor I would
imagine he no longer lives in the United States and the
government is going to spend more money in collecting the fines
than the fines total, if they decide to collect. As for the post
itself, I see nothing wrong with it. It's a request for
information. Anyone that wants to spend an hour at
http://www.google.com/ can find a way to get what the poster
wants. Particularly someone who lives so close to Canada. And
with a technology that is legal in the United States. But I'm
not going to give you that link, do the work yourself.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2005-06-26, 4:55 pm |
| In article <MPG. 1d289cb591b0c86c9896
a1@news-server.cfl.rr.com>,
djk <djk@spam.operamail.com> wrote:
quote:
> thing is there are people selling the equipment in the United
> States, and Canada. As far as this specific vendor I would
> imagine he no longer lives in the United States and the
> government is going to spend more money in collecting the fines
> than the fines total, if they decide to collect. As for the post
> itself, I see nothing wrong with it. It's a request for
> information. Anyone that wants to spend an hour at
> http://www.google.com/ can find a way to get what the poster
> wants. Particularly someone who lives so close to Canada. And
> with a technology that is legal in the United States. But I'm
> not going to give you that link, do the work yourself.
That's right.
There's no inherent right to make a cell phone call. I don't care if
you are having a heart attack; if you try to make a call and can't,
there's no one to blame. Cell phones are a convenience; if you turn
yours into a mandatory lifesaving device, then you'd better have
something other than traditional cell phone service.
If you want to make a call for whatever reason and you can't, and there
isn't a jammer around, what will you do--sue the cell phone company
because they have shitty coverage? Sue the guy whose house/office
you're in because he lives in a shitty coverage area or has made
building decisions that prevent the cell phone from working optimally?
It doesn't take an hour to find something in Google; it takes more like
10 seconds:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092059/
which says, among other things:
quote:
> Americans seeking a legal way to jam cell phones can look into "passive"
> jamming technologies. For instance, lining your office in lead should ensure
> that no signals get in or out. But if lead is too industrial to suit your
> dcor, a more genteel alternative exists: You could install "magnetic wood"
> paneling throughout. A Japanese scientist, Hideo Oka, has invented a new kind
> of building material
> (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992461), saturated with
> magnetic particles made of nickel-zinc ferrite that supposedly deflect 97
> percent of mobile-phone signals.
You know, a better way to handle things would be to have a system
whereby the phone automatically goes to a silent mode (or, for schools,
be turned off) when it crosses the threshold of someplace where the
owner doesn't want distraction--church, theater, whatever.
Make the owner put up a sign at each entrance, similar to the "smoking
prohibited" signs that are popping up as a result of no-smoking
ordinances, and that's that. That would require the cooperation of the
phone manufacturers, but that should be no big deal.
| |
| Thomas Avery 2005-06-26, 10:55 pm |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-0620B8. 08234026062005@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
quote:
> In article <2-KdnQ9kg-NwriPfRVn-oA@comcast.com>,
> "Steven Banks" < roadkingman_FINGER_@
hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Business as usual from the cell phone companies, actually.
>
>
I have a friend who has a cell blocker. It looks like a cell phone and
blocks within about a 15 foot radius. Works great in restaurants when the
jerks are yapping and C. turns it on. Suddenly things become quiet.Love it.
Wish I had one.
| |
| John Richards 2005-06-27, 4:55 pm |
| Steven Banks wrote:
quote:
> In this "I'll sue your XXX off" day and age... let me predict what will
> happen.
>
> They get an illegal cell phone jammer. At first nobody really notices. Then
> all of a sudden, people start to wonder why no one is getting any service in
> THAT building, yet a few feet, yards away they get crystal clear reception.
> Then later as everything plays out, someone will need to make or receive
> that ONE emergency call... the ONE call that really is a life or death
> matter, and they can't! Here come the suits against the person responsible
> for using the unit and the city government.
>
> I think people will eventually figure out why not one person can make or
> receive a call in that building. The rest will be history or should I say
> herstory.
>
> Just a guess,
> Steve Banks
How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or
non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all
employ jammers? I doubt it, and I think it's mainly due to the
building's construction materials, or being in a 'shadow' from
obstructions between it and the nearest tower.
--
John Richards
| |
|
|
"John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
news:ytXve.223$RC6.163@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> How many buildings or stores do you know that have very poor or
> non-existant cellphone reception? I know lots of them. Do they all
> employ jammers? I doubt it, and I think it's mainly due to the
> building's construction materials, or being in a 'shadow' from
> obstructions between it and the nearest tower.
>
The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings and
businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW).
Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals
| |
| John R. Copeland 2005-06-27, 10:55 pm |
| "SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net> wrote in message =
news:WNSdnfzunPvmCF3
fRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
quote:
>=20
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ytXve.223$RC6.163@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>=20
>=20
> The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many =
buildings and
quote:
> businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, =
BTW).
quote:
> Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals
>
Or maybe just aluminum-foil vapor barrier on the back of the insulation.
That's been in use since long before cellular telephony.
| |
|
|
"John R. Copeland" <jcopelan@columbus.rr.aol.com> wrote in message
news:iX0we.25737$IL3.9601@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
"SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net> wrote in message
news:WNSdnfzunPvmCF3
fRVn-ig@adelphia.com...
quote:
>
> "John Richards" <jr70@blackhole.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ytXve.223$RC6.163@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings
and
quote:
> businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW).
> Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals
>
Or maybe just aluminum-foil vapor barrier on the back of the insulation.
That's been in use since long before cellular telephony.
No- this is a specific part of the building design with the sole purpose of
stopping cellular signals.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2005-06-27, 10:55 pm |
| In article <WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
"SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net> wrote:
quote:
> The construction angle is probably the most accurate, as many buildings and
> businesses are putting in passive cellular shields (which are legal, BTW).
> Basically a large metal mesh that disrupts radio signals
OH NO! BUT WHAT IF I'M HAVING A HEART ATTACK AND I PULL OUT MY CELL
PHONE AND I CAN'T CALL FOR HELP, IT'S THE EVIL BUILDING OWNER'S FAULT!
WHAT IF...WHAT IF....WHAT IF...HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE ON MY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CELL PHONE CALL FOR ANY REASON AT ANY
TIME! THEY MUST PAY!
| |
|
| "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in
news:elmop-F88651. 13345226062005@nntp1
.usenetserver.com:
quote:
>
> You know, a better way to handle things would be to have a
> system whereby the phone automatically goes to a silent mode
> (or, for schools, be turned off) when it crosses the threshold
> of someplace where the owner doesn't want distraction--church,
> theater, whatever.
>
> Make the owner put up a sign at each entrance, similar to the
> "smoking prohibited" signs that are popping up as a result of
> no-smoking ordinances, and that's that. That would require the
> cooperation of the phone manufacturers, but that should be no
> big deal.
>
Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are
testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the
danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the
sensitive electronic equipment.
Many of us have had EKGs at one time or another. Remember how hard
the tech had to work to get each of the connections just so to pick
up that VERY SENSITIVE voltage from the muscles being read? Now
imagine a heart attack patient, or better yet a person who had just
had a transplant, and one of the contacts is maybe just on the
borderline of marginal and maybe making a little bit like a diode,
then key a transmitter close to it, with a signal several orders of
magnitude greater the ones we are interested in. Think it won't
have an impact?
Put up a sign and turn on the jammer.
| |
|
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-286E86. 21081127062005@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
quote:
> In article <WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> "SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net> wrote:
>
and[vbcol=darkred]
BTW).[vbcol=darkred]
>
> OH NO! BUT WHAT IF I'M HAVING A HEART ATTACK AND I PULL OUT MY CELL
> PHONE AND I CAN'T CALL FOR HELP, IT'S THE EVIL BUILDING OWNER'S FAULT!
> WHAT IF...WHAT IF....WHAT IF...HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE ON MY
> CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CELL PHONE CALL FOR ANY REASON AT ANY
> TIME! THEY MUST PAY!
>
OK, Elmo- calm down. Don't hyperventilate. Walk away from the light.
| |
|
|
"tim" <timothybil@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9682D80689D1
2timothybilcomcastne
t@207.69.189.191...
quote:
> Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
> situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are
> testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the
> danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the
> sensitive electronic equipment.
Ummmmm- doesn't a jammer operate as an rf transmitter and on the same
frequency as the cell phone? Wouldn't that make it as bad as the cell phone
itself......or maybe worse, as it would be operating all of the time?
quote:
>
| |
| Bill T 2005-06-28, 6:55 am |
| > Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
quote:
> situations. I have seen reports where several major hospitals are
> testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the
> danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the
> sensitive electronic equipment.
I think we went thru this topic before a few months ago. It is an old
wives' tale that cell-phones can gunk up critical-care equipment. Some
hospitals ban cell-phones for reasons of quiet, patient-care, and
logistics - not for fear of killing off patients. In many hospitals,
physicians routinely use cell-phones in the operating rooms and ICU's.
quote:
> Many of us have had EKGs at one time or another. Remember how hard
> the tech had to work to get each of the connections just so to pick
> up that VERY SENSITIVE voltage from the muscles being read? Now
> imagine a heart attack patient, or better yet a person who had just
> had a transplant, and one of the contacts is maybe just on the
> borderline of marginal and maybe making a little bit like a diode,
> then key a transmitter close to it, with a signal several orders of
> magnitude greater the ones we are interested in. Think it won't
> have an impact?
Nope. I have never seen a cell-phone cause an EKG blip. On the other hand,
operating room electrocautery will always zap the EKG monitoring. (OT So
many things can interfere with the EKG that there is always back-up
monitoring - like feeling the patient's pulse.)
Bill T
..
| |
| wkearney99 2005-06-28, 6:55 am |
|
Hopefully anyone with this stupid an attitude would drop-dead long before
help arrived.
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-286E86. 21081127062005@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
quote:
> In article <WNSdnfzunPvmCF3fRVn-ig@adelphia.com>,
> "SS" < nospam1336479852@wop
dj.net> wrote:
>
and[vbcol=darkred]
BTW).[vbcol=darkred]
>
> OH NO! BUT WHAT IF I'M HAVING A HEART ATTACK AND I PULL OUT MY CELL
> PHONE AND I CAN'T CALL FOR HELP, IT'S THE EVIL BUILDING OWNER'S FAULT!
> WHAT IF...WHAT IF....WHAT IF...HOW DARE THEY INFRINGE ON MY
> CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE A CELL PHONE CALL FOR ANY REASON AT ANY
> TIME! THEY MUST PAY!
>
| |
| Jim Seymour 2005-06-28, 9:55 am |
| In article < Xns9682D80689D12timo
thybilcomcastnet@207
.69.189.191>,
tim <timothybil@comcast.net> writes:
& #91;snip]
quote:
> Don't forget, that cell phones can be "life-threatening" in certain
> situations.
Yeah, that's what they say, all right.
quote:
> I have seen reports where several major hospitals are
> testing cell jammers in the critical care areas because of the
> danger of having an rf transmitter so close to some of the
> sensitive electronic equipment.
So they're going to put always-on broadband RF sources in areas where
they want to prohibit RF sources, is that it?
quote:
>
> Many of us have had EKGs at one time or another. Remember how hard
> the tech had to work to get each of the connections just so to pick
> up that VERY SENSITIVE voltage from the muscles being read?
No, I don't. They attached the wires, did their thing, detached the
wires.
& #91;snip]
quote:
>
> Put up a sign and turn on the jammer.
Uh huh. Btw: If the milliwatt-level RF energy from cell phones is so
disruptive to medical equipment, please explain why hospital security
staff operate multi-watt hand-held two-way radios in the same
environment?
Btw2: Do you know how much hospitals charge for in-room telephones?
There are good and valid reasons to restrict the operation of cell
phones in hospitals, but they're more along the lines of why their
use should be restricted on aircraft, in theaters and restaurants,
and in other venues where people are too damn stupid and
inconsiderate to be allowed the freedom of their own judgement.
--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
| |
| KS4VT@yahoo_nospam.com 2005-06-29, 9:55 am |
| http://www.rcrnews.com/news.cms?newsId=23199
FCC re-iterates cell-phone jammers are illegal
Jun 28, 2005
WASHINGTON-People who want to use cell-phone jammers to get rid of
annoying mobile-phone use should think again.
It is against the law. Those found using, selling, manufacturing or
distributing cell-phone jammers could be subject to an $11,000-per-day
fine and seizure of their equipment by the United States Marshals,
warned the Federal Communications Commission.
"In response to multiple inquiries concerning the sale and use of
transmitters designed to prevent, jam or interfere with the operation
of cellular and PCS telephones, the FCC is issuing this public notice
to make clear that the marketing, sale or operation of this type of
equipment is unlawful. Anyone involved with such activities may be
subject to forfeitures, fines or even criminal prosecution," said the
FCC.
| |
| Linc Madison 2005-06-29, 10:55 pm |
| In article < Ma2dnax9_uCdOyDfRVny
jw@skypoint.com>, someone purporting to
be Kathleen Carmody < councilmembercarmody
@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us>
wrote:
quote:
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
It's not a "supposition" or an "opion" -- cellphone jammers are illegal
in the United States. Period. It is illegal to sell, buy, advertise, or
operate a cellphone jammer in the United States. Period. See 47 USC
302a and 47 CFR 2.803 for the details.
If you operate a cellphone jammer, you are subject to fines of up to
$11,000 per day under 47 CFR 1.80(b)(3). Whatever reasoning you think
you have for ignoring those rules, I doubt the FCC or the judge would
agree.
If you have an area where you don't want people to use cellphones, the
only legal way to do it is by constructing a cellphone blocker --
essentially an enclosure with enough metal in the walls to absorb
enough of the wavelengths used by cellphones to make them inoperable
inside the enclosure. Google on the exact phrase "Faraday cage." Since
a Faraday cage is a passive device that does not interfere with the
operation of any equipment outside itself, it is not subject to the FCC
licensing requirements. After all, it's just a metal box.
If you're still intent on getting a cellphone jammer, I'll leave it to
the judge to "lecture" you at your sentencing.
--
Linc Madison * San Francisco, California * lincmad@suespammers.org
All U.S. and California anti-spam laws apply, incl. CA BPC 17538.45(c)
This text constitutes actual notice as required in BPC 17538.45(f)(3).
DO NOT SEND UNSOLICITED E-MAIL TO THIS ADDRESS. You have been warned.
| |
|
|
|
| Kathleen Carmody < councilmembercarmody
@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote in
news:Ma2dnax9_uCdOyD
fRVnyjw@skypoint.com:
quote:
>
> (-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
> Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
> stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
> that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
> jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
>
What kind of thrill do you get from asking stupid questions ?
You asked the same thing in rec.radio.scanners and got flamed.
Think it would be any different here moron ?
| |
| DevilsPGD 2005-06-30, 10:55 pm |
| In message <4HMwe.1249$aY6.307@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
DecTxCowboy < dtc_nada_spamo_ramp@
swbell.net> wrote:
quote:
>
>Well...that rules out 99.999999% of handset users.
True, but well within the capabilities of most of the professionally
employed cell signal monitoring monkeys.
They might not catch you if you're walking around, but a stationary
jammer will get noticed, will get complaints, and will eventually get
found.
--
Just sit through this NRA meeting Marge, and if you still
don't think guns are great then we'll argue some more.
-- Homer Simpson
| |
| Mebart 2005-07-09, 10:55 pm |
| Build your own, it's actually quite simple provided you don't need
long range. Schematics and other info at:
www.gbppr.org
I think it can even be simpler than that, but I'm not stupid enough to
try it myself.
Enjoy.
M
On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 13:44:16 -0500, Kathleen Carmody
< councilmembercarmody
@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote:
quote:
>
>(-PLEASE- No lectures or legal suppositions needed or desired)
>
>Anyone know where to purchase a cellular phone jammer, preferably
>stateside. There are vendors off shore, but none here in CONUS
>that I know of. Please post here any US vendors that sell cellular
>jammers. (Extra points for relating your experience with using one.)
| |
| Jim Seymour 2005-07-25, 5:48 pm |
| In article < Xns9685974EA56D1ewrf
dgrstnet@140.99.99.130>,
Jesse <org@org.orgy> writes:
> Kathleen Carmody < councilmembercarmody
@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote in
> news:Ma2dnax9_uCdOyD
fRVnyjw@skypoint.com:
>
>
> What kind of thrill do you get from asking stupid questions ?
> You asked the same thing in rec.radio.scanners and got flamed.
> Think it would be any different here moron ?
Must be a glutton for punishment. She also posted the question to
comp.dcom.telecom, sci.electronics.misc, and sci.electronics.design.
--
Jim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not
jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking."
http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison
|
|
|
|
|