cell phone jammers make way

Quote:

---

MONTERREY, Mexico - It was the reporters who noticed first. Unable to call their editors while covering the weddings of the rich and famous, they asked the priest why their cell phones never worked at Sacred Heart. His reply: Israeli counterintelligence.

In four Monterrey churches, Israeli-made cell phone jammers the size of paperbacks have been tucked unobtrusively among paintings of the Madonna and statues of the saints.

The jarring polychromatic din of ringing cell phones is increasingly being thwarted — from religious sanctuaries to India's parliament to Tokyo theaters and commuter trains — by devices originally developed to help security forces avert eavesdropping and thwart phone-triggered bombings.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6272681/?GT1=5472

---

Intersesting, about time....maybe they need to start handing out EULA's. :rolleyes:

CHEERS! I'd dearly love to see such devices installed in American restaurants, alongside the traffic lanes of major highways, and other places where talking on one's cellphone either disturbs the peace or creates a danger to one's self or others.

Greetings:

This should be outlawed federally, and outlawed fast! This is a denial-of-service attack disguised as a "do not disturb" convenience device.

Many people, including doctors, firefighters, and policemen rely on their cellular devices. Their ability to access these services can literally be matters of life and death for someone. To deny them access without notifying them, or even WITH notifying them, is just flat out not something our society should be condoning.

I have a strong feeling that US courts will agree with me on this issue in the near future...

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by JP
Greetings:

This should be outlawed federally, and outlawed fast! This is a denial-of-service attack disguised as a "do not disturb" convenience device.

Many people, including doctors, firefighters, and policemen rely on their cellular devices. Their ability to access these services can literally be matters of life and death for someone. To deny them access without notifying them, or even WITH notifying them, is just flat out not something our society should be condoning.

I have a strong feeling that US courts will agree with me on this issue in the near future...

---

I disagree... what if I own a store and don't want people using their cell phones in my store? What if I'm at a funeral and I don't want to hear someone blabbing on their cell phone? What I think should be done is at each location with a cell phone blocker, a notification should be put up warning the public they are entering a dead phone zone. Anyone who has an issue with it, doesn't have to enter... simple enough. Next, public servants have other ways of communicating, for example via radio on different frequencies.

As much as I dislike cellphones and the obnocious people who use them in a public place JP has a point. Youre on call first responders need to be at least notified that there cell phones will not work...If there was a way to allow pages/sms while block voice I would be for these devices other wise this is a risk to public safty.

Oh and JP why would the courts have to rull on this, it would seem to fall into the fcc and obstruction of public airwaves.

Yes, these devices would seem to go against the FCC's "must not interfere with other devices" rules.

I do believe that a jammer causes "harmful interference."

Quote:

---

alongside the traffic lanes of major highways

---

umm..yes and when someone is shooting at me I can thank you for wanting such things around the highway lol jk. Fight to the death is my motto. :) Anyways, going along with ;TT.....In places like churches, and restuarants should have nothing to do with governmental jurisdiction and should be allowed to have such things. Especially with the Church and state speration admendment. Its very annoying when a cell goes off between my preachers sermon talking about how bush sux, "click click-bang!!!". Think about this:: what did we do 10, 20 yrs ago when when we didn't have cells-at least not us common people?

Personally I think it is a HUGE violation of rights to have jammers in a public place of business without any form of notification. If there is notification, then it's ok, but otherwise, it should be outlawed.

Quote:

---

Personally I think it is a HUGE violation of rights to have jammers in a public place of business without any form of notification. If there is notification, then it's ok, but otherwise, it should be outlawed.

---

Yea just like the "billions" of cameras everywhere...

Don't start me on that subject... I am against it almost as much... My biggest argument against cell phone jammers is they are a means of communication and you need to be notified before your line of communication is cut. Cameras are simply nothing more than an invasion of privacy. They don't affect anyone except those being recorded and those who can watch

/me loves the idea of jammers - for the simple reason that he's seen cell phone induced car wrecks, and has had his quiet dinner/movie/theatre show/night at the nudie bar interrupted by the bloody things.

I submit to you that if a Doctor, Attorney, Cop, Firefighter, or other emergency response person is *on call* he should be at home or work, not out at these places. As for in between, there are such things as alphanumeric pagers which work nicely. I would agree with you JP, if cell phones weren't readily available to the masses, but as it is, there's too many idiots out there using them at inappropriate times. Ask me sometime about the 18-wheeler driver who almost t-boned me because he was distracted talking on his cell phone and didn't see my lil 1 ton pickup which is BRIGHT RED. For that matter, ask some of the victims who've been killed in car wrecks caused by 'distracted drivers' on their cell phones...oh, wait...you can't. Sorry, no sympathy here. There's SAT links if the doctors want not to be jammed - they're still too expensive for the masses, but cop cars everywhere are equipped with them.

Quote:

---

Don't start me on that subject...

---

I'm not starting anything!

Quote:

---

/me loves the idea of jammers - for the simple reason that he's seen cell phone induced car wrecks, and has had his quiet dinner/movie/theatre show/night at the nudie bar interrupted by the bloody things.

---

Thus enters the logic debate- block it, block everybody-or- block no one and keep everything the same:confused: .

Look even with notification this is a hugh violation of rights, cellphones live in the publice use radio spectrum, no one has any right to block what you send or recive over those frequencys. So any jamming would be illegal, it owuld be akin to telling someone that they didn't have the right to breath in your building.

The problem with cell phones is the same IMHO is education. There is no real need to jam cell phones as nearly all cell phones have a silent mode on them. the thing is people just dont have the reflex to use it. If you are in a theather or cinema you are not going to talk as it is impolite the same should go for cell phones.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by bballad
Look even with notification this is a hugh violation of rights, cellphones live in the publice use radio spectrum, no one has any right to block what you send or recive over those frequencys. So any jamming would be illegal, it owuld be akin to telling someone that they didn't have the right to breath in your building.

---

This is true. Cell Phones live in the public spectrum. However, individual places like Churchs, movie theaters, restauraunts, and stores all maintain the right to deny a person service. They maintain the right to do as they wish with their facilities. So why can they not deny a person the use of their cell phone? It is up to the owners of the property. There should be notification that the cell phones are jammed in a building. Also, they have to take extensive percausions to see that the jammer doesn't reach out of their building/property But inside the building, it is at the owners discretion, if we do otherwise, we deny the owner the right to do as they wish with their own property.

What would be the point to own a cellphone?

There simply wouldn't be a point.

I reckon its a good idea ... i hate phones in cinemas etc

public areas - no

privately owned areas - up to the owner

I do agree with both sides tho .. I can see in emergencies when you need your phone it being a problem ..

Quote:

---

doctors, firefighters, and policemen rely on their cellular devices

---

In reality it's a federal mandate that high level emergency responders NOT rely on public cellular based networks. Sure they do it, but it's BAD planning on their part. In every scenario public communication is proven unreliable. Every contingency plan I have seen (and built) places public wireless communications as a severe risk as secondary use only. Thought I would toss that in. :D Oh and having said that, the private networks are often in a different frequency spectrum but there would be some cause for alarm if the jamming device crossed multiple boundaries. But as soon as you loose the connectivity with a trunking controller the radio will beep at you because it falls into a "failsafe" mode and your are alerted.

Critical pagers are on Satelites and hell they don't even work in basements more than 2 or 3 levels deep anyway. If a device does not "interfere" outside the building or property then the FCC does not apply as currently written. You can blast the hell out of a room but not at another site for example.

There is no such thing as a public business. It's private individuals granting access to their facilities, you have "permission" to be there. Public is a kind of misnomer that is confused at times. For instance, they have the right to say, put a shirt on or "don't come in here with no shoes" etc. Or to outlaw smoking. Now someone decided that they didn't want cell phones ringing. Oh here is one that is the opposite "Coat and tie required" Not very "public" al lot of times.

\\EDIT Just read Maracu's post again. It would be awesome if there was a way (through technology) to send out a signal to "disable" the ring tones and place the device in silent mode.

Quote:

---

\\EDIT Just read Maracu's post again. It would be awesome if there was a way (through technology) to send out a signal to "disable" the ring tones and place the device in silent mode.

---

Amen.

Too bad we can't send out a signal to squelch down those annoying 'hen voices' blabbing on them too.

They will be banned because they are like land mines.... They are indiscriminate.... When you place your jammer in your church and the jamming effect overflows into nest door's airspace thus blocking your neighbors cell phone he will sue you.... Simple.....

Hi Tiger~

Quote:

---

They will be banned because they are like land mines

---

I thought that active jamming already was illegal in the USA? it certainly is over here (Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949).

You can get a license for them but you would need a very good reason such as security (HIJACK) or safety. Private individuals wouldn't have a chance.

Funnily enough a lot of public places (pubs and restaurants) have absolutely lousy reception anyway because of the structural steelwork. :eek:

I believe you can get special wall cladding that does the job passively, so I suppose that is legal still.

Nihil:

Yep, I changed cell phones because the construction of my local blocked my last cell phone....

Sure, you could put passive devices in and it would be perfectly reasonable..... It's the active devices that unknowingly block other people's access that will cause the issues...

Guess all those metal buildings in the US would be illegal since they block access to wireless networks. :D

Hell take a wire and stick it in the high level output of an older laserdisk player, run it around the room and you got yourself a jammer. The first generation of those things would drown out an entire spectrum.

Under current rules: intentional jamming is illegal, so is unintentional (unless the interfering device is operating as it is supposed too) but it's tough to enforce since it takes some equipment to find it and prove it.

Today's modern cell phone REQUIRE close proximity to a cell station to function properly since they are so tiny. Today .025 of watt is huge, 10 years ago they operated at 5 watts.

Regardles of Active or Passive blocking the outcome is the same, you walk into a building and contact with the cell controller is lost.

\\EDIT Besides... according to the article private use of Cell phone blockers is illegal in the USA.