Canadian Government to Jam Radio Signals

An anonymous reader submits: "According to this article, the Canadian government has given the military and RCMP permission to jam radio signals during the G8 summit and the Pope's visit. I suppose that the stated reason would be to prevent terrorists from communicating with each other, but I have to wonder whether it's also being done to keep those pesky protesters from effectively organizing at the G8. And if this action manages to block wireless 911 calls, and someone dies because of that, who's going to be willing to step up to the plate and take the blame?"

Comments

Jamming 911 calls

[BlueOtto]

"And if this action manages to block wireless 911 calls, and someone dies because of that, who's going to be willing to step up to the plate and take the blame?"

Our country lived without cell phones for 200 years; I think people will survive for another 12 days without them in that area. They are going to be in a populated area; landline phones will be nearby. People don't die from lack of cell phones.

Re:Jamming 911 calls

[isomeme]

Yes, they do. Deaths occur due to lack of prompt emergency medical intervention, and in many such cases availability of a phone (cell or otherwise) would have allowed faster EMS response. Given that we're all always four minutes away from death by anoxia, the difference between an immediate and a slightly delayed EMS response can be literally a matter of life and death.

Before phones, EMS response to time-critical injuries and illnesses was more or less impossible. As phones became more pervasive, a victim's chance of surviving thanks to prompt intervention rose. Cell phones have continued this trend.

So yes, a jammed cell phone might well cost someone his or her life. The fact that the victim would also have died in 1970 is irrelevant.

Re:Jamming 911 calls

[Loki_1929]

"Our country lived without cell phones for 200 years; I think people will survive for another 12 days without them in that area."

200 years ago, no one was dependant on them. Aside from the fact that this is an incredible inconvenience, there are several other problems here. First of all, is the government going to reimburse its cell-phone carrying citizens for their lost money during the blackout period? 12 days is nearly half a month, so the folks paying $70 and $80/mo are getting screwed out of about $40 every time they decide to do this.

Next we have the woman jogging in the park who is suddenly being chased by a man. She reaches for her cell phone to dial 911, but no signal. Why? HER government, the one that is supposed to be protecting her, has decided to jam the signal. She then has no way to call for help, and if no one hears here cries for help, she might be raped and/or killed by her attacker. Seem far-fetched? Call your nearest city's police and ask how many cell-phone 911 calls they receive in a month, then ask how many of those calls probably saved a life. I doubt the woman in this example could stop at a payphone, pick up the reciver, and dial 911, then talk to the person at 911 before her attacker reached her. People don't die from lack of cell phones, but you cannot possibly argue that cell phones don't save lives that would otherwise be lost.

Just yet another example of a government doing part of its job much worse (protecting the rights of citizens) to try to make up for where it's been lacking (protecting the security of its citizens.) The destruction and terror wrought by Al Qaida pales in comparison to that caused by politicians. To save life at the expense of liberty is the same as ending poverty by killing those who are impoverished.

Just in case anyone hasn't noticed, Israel has been a case study in how less freedom, less liberty, more laws, more soldiers, more guns, more walls, and more surveillance does *NOT* make you more secure. Freedom and security go hand in hand. Laws don't make you more secure, nor do guns; freedom does. Didn't anyone else feel a sense of pride at the shouting of the phrase, "They may take our lives, but they will never take our freedom!" ? Think about that phrase for a while.

The stupidities are multiple.

[AgTiger]

Let's see...

1. If you jam radio frequencies, you deny yourself information you might otherwise be able to use to your advantage. Not real smart.

2. This does NOTHING to block visual signalling methods, or hard-line transmission methods that do not rely on radio frequency communication.

3. Remote control explosive devices that could be set off by the intended transmission could also be set off by the jamming, which is _also_ a transmission of considerable strength on multiple frequencies. Explosive crews use those "Turn off Transmitter next X miles" signs for a reason.

4. If you only block selective frequencies, you'll probably miss blocking transmissions in other alternate bands/frequencies you didn't expect "the forces of darkness" to use.

5. The methods they intend to use are akin to killing a fly with a sledgehammer.

And that's just off the top of my head!

Easy excuse...

[forged]

• "...if this action manages to block wireless 911 calls, and someone dies because of that, who's going to be willing to step up to the plate and take the blame?"

What if the jamming effectively ruins some terrorists plans, and prevents a disaster and saves hundreds of lives? But I guess that we'll never know for sure.

I am personally convinced that the various intelligence agencies prevent dozens of terrorist attacks per months, some of them probably of the 9/11 magnitude, without the public realizing simply because the government wants to keep those quiet (no need to shout wolf once the threat is defused).

Free as in Speech!

[The Monster]

terrorists are the only ones who use cellphones

Let no one forget that on 11 Sep 2001, while the authorities were fumbling to react to what had happened at the WTC and Pentagon, common citizens used their cellphones to inform the passengers on the fourth flight, who took action to save countless other potential victims.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution codifies the idea that the free flow of information empowers free people to do good things with that information. Pity that our neighbors to the north rejected the invitation to place themselves under its jurisdiction (and that our own government seems hell-bent on neutering the entire document).

Re:Comments From the Front Lines:

[SuiteSisterMary]

Exactly. Peaceful protestors don't need balaclavas and backpacks full of bricks and bottles. Peaceful protestors don't say "We're going to block traffic, and if the Police try to move us, well, they're the ones starting the violence." And so on.

Re:Canadian Government....

[ergo98]

Unfortunately, Canadia is not a capitalist system.

I see this "Canada is a socialism" BS on here a lot on Slashdot, and I find it fascinating. Could you tell me where I might find a "non-socialist" country? I presume you won't say the United States, as public highways, old age security, public schools, police departments, fire departments, public health, any government agency, etc, is ALL SOCIALISM (I'm in a rush and am too lazy right now, but please show me the budget amounts for the US and Canadian federal governments: I'll guess that they are largely the same per capita).

Any time people gather together for a "common good" is socialism. Life insurance is a version of socialism. Health insurance is COMPLETELY socialism (or do all Americans forsake health insurance because it's "commie socialism"? Do they say "No, when I get cancer, I'm looking forward to ponying up $527,293.23, because that's the capitalist American way!). Any time you don't directly pay for the goods and services that you receive, 100% so, it is a socialism system that is supporting it.

Re:Who really owns the airwaves?

[legojenn]

I read comments like yours and wonder if people with this perspective read/listen to the news, read anything other than propaganda. Do you research before you opine? As someone who has worked in social services in both countries, I can assure you that the differences between the US and Canada are far smaller than Canadians or (probably) Americans want to believe. I would even guess that differences between provinces or states are greater than the differences between the two countries in border areas.

Both countries have developed market economies. Both countries interfere in the markets of the country. The US is hypocritical in that it demands "free trade" for its exports, yet is very quick to put up trade barriers when producers in other countries can provide goods & services at a lower cost. Another example of the US hypocricy are the farm subsidies. If the US was truly governed by pure capitalist philosphy, the government would probably simply say to the farmers "Shut up, sell out and find a job in the city". The US regularly ignores WTO & NAFTA judgments.

Canada, on the other hand interferes in the economy by assisting individuals (more, but not much more spending on medicare (the US has medicaid, though it's not universal) and on education.) & taking a marketing role in items like commodities (Wheat Board as an example). Both countries back their corporations with tax holidays, no-interest loans and loan guarantees (Both countries bailed out Chrysler in the late 70s). Like the US, Canada ignores international trade decisions at its leisure. Canada gave loan guarantees to Bombardier for airplane exports against the As it turns out, our representatives wisely decided to opt for a capitalist system.

All western democracies have. Whether it is wise or not is debatable.

The highest bidder (that is, the bidder with the strongest desire to speak), is able to purchase spectrum at a reasonable cost from the American people. Thus, the maximum possible return is achieved for the taxpayers, and the highest bidder has paid a fair price for the scarce resource they need. Capitalism works - period.

It may be more prudent to lease the resources to the companies. If the resources are scarce, ownership should stay with everyone. Look at the havoc brought on by privatisation of electric services. For a European example, look at the UK rail system. I am crossing my fingers that the London Underground doesn't go the same way. Capitalism may work if you are privileged to begin with, but the market can also sometimes let people down with fatal results. I could also drag out the example of the post office. Without the government running or regulating the agency, many small/isolated communities would simply not be serviced if the post office were privatised.

Unfortunately, Canadia (sic) is not a capitalist society. Canadians favor socialist approaches to health care, government, and (yes) RF spectrum allocation. This means that the rights to an area of spectrum belong to the government, not to the people (as in America). And the Canadian government is now flexing their muscle and exercising their right to take this valuable resource away from its citizens, who wish to communicate amongst themselves. This underscores a crucial point of socialism: its sole purpose is to maintain control over the populace, at any cost. The basic premise of capitalism flies in the face of this sort of manipulation, and that is why America will never become a police state, regardless of what Draconian laws the Bush administration manages to pass.

Blah Blah Blah...Ask someone who is poor and/or of colour if your country is a police state. Money, and sometimes the perception of having it is what is keeping many people from being targets. Canada has the Charter of Rights, the US has the Bill of Rights, both have roughly the same level of legal protection. Arguments that in the US the government's power comes from the people and in Canada, the government grants rights and freedoms is purely one of semantics.

So, in summary: you get what you elect. If you vote for socialists, don't expect to get fair use out of the natural resources and public goods in your country. The lesson comes at a high cost for many Canadians (witness the breakdown of their health care system),

Breakdown, really? Have you been to a doctor, hospital in Canada? "Breakdown of the Healthcare system" is a term used by conservatives tojustify abandoning the system and give their wealthy supporters tax breaks. The health care system is underfunded, but okay.

but recognizing the problem is the first step in finding a solution and joining the rest of the Western world in becoming a capitalist country.

I think I have addressed this earlier. The US is no more committed to the free market than any other developed country. Though I have focussed heavily on trade & commerce, it is because that was your argument that a police state would never come from a capitalist society. Capitalism v. Social Democracy have little to do with democracy v. totalitarianism. What does this have to do with the airwaves? Well, as much as I hate to see legitimate dissent thwarted by abuse of authority, I really don't see what difference it makes whether or not we are jammed by a government agency or by a corporation. Jennifer

Re:Comments From the Front Lines:

[Ian Bicking]

So what should they do? Have candlelight vigils? Send letters to their representatives?

I've been to nice, peaceful protests, and they are a joke. You get a permit to stand in some park cut off from anyone and the only way you inconvenience the system is that they have to pay extra for all the police they get to cordon you off. It's a big waste of time. But it's peaceful and doesn't get in anyone's way.

In my experience the protesters usually do not start the violence. But the protesters are confrontational. You must be confrontational in some way if you want to have a real protest -- that's what it means to have a protest. Otherwise it's just a parade. Civil rights protesters did not ask the government for a permit to do a sit in. Gandhi did not cooperate with the police. The protesters in these cases may have been nonviolent, but the protests themselves were often very violent.

I know you would rather people not protest -- if it's a real protest it will likely disrupt your life. But stop being a fucking whiner! These issues are bigger than your fucking day to day life. These issues are more important than a few windows that might get broken in the chaos. This is what protest looks like, and either say you are against protest altogether, or accept that it has to come to your town eventually.

I'm sorry if I'm attacking you, but at a certain point it really pisses me off when people are so petty. This isn't a soccer match, the protests are about real things. And these protests have meant something -- for one, it's meant that the leaders of the 8 most important countries are having a clandestine meeting in the wilderness. That doesn't happen because of a letter-writing campaign.

Re:Comments From the Front Lines:

[Sentry21]

What an absurdly inane comment.

You're telling the poster that he should stop whining about millions of dollars in property damage because people need to be heard? I'm sorry, you don't need to smash storefront windows to be heard. You don't need to attack police to be heard. You don't need to start riots to be heard.

Get a clue. Democracy is by election. What you're supporting is vigilante democracy. What you're supporting is business getting destroyed because people have no sense of responsibility. There is no excuse whatsoever for the kind of garbage that happens at these meetings and summits and so on.

Yes, the leaders of 8 countries are meeting in the wilderness. And it's not happening because of a letter writing campaign. It's happening because people use violent means towards political ends.

If protest means I'm afraid to leave my house, if protest means my favourite stores are closed half the month, if protest means damage and destruction, fires, looting, and hundreds of people hospitalized because some jerks feel like they have the right, then no, I don't support protesting. But that's not protesting, that's vandalism and mob rule, and I don't support that at all.

--Dan

Re:Comments From the Front Lines:

[Our Man In Redmond]

Thank you. I was trying to figure out how to say this and hadn't gotten the words right.

I grew up in the Sixties. Protest is as much a part of my upbringing as The Beverly Hillbillies and bad rock & roll. But when I think of the protests that meant anything, I think more of the people like Pete Seeger, Arlo Guthrie, Phil Ochs, Bob Dylan, the Smothers Brothers and all those who wrote songs people would listen to that got the message across. I think of the anonymous individuals teaching others just how bad an idea the war was. I think of the ubiquitous posters saying things like "It will be a great day when the schools have all the money they need and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber." None of those get in anybody's face but the cumulative effect was to sway public opinion enough to where the government had no choice but to withdraw from Vietnam.

In my mind if you're going to change people's minds about an issue, trying to do it through smashing things doesn't work ("You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar"). The WTO protesters in Seattle, in my mind, did NOT succeed in their mission, unless their mission was to drive WTO and G8 and similar meetings undergrond to places like the United Arab Emirates and the Canadian wilderness, and to have their legacy from Seattle be "those anarchists who just busted a lot of windows and looted some stores." rather than "the people who got me started thinking what a bad idea globalization is."