Slashdot Mirror
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?"
Here are some details.
Jam this!
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
"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.
Because we all know how terrorists are the only ones who use mobile phones and drug dealers are the only ones who use pages.
While the above is not particularly insightful, it does touch on a good point. It's not just the bad guys who use mobile phones. Having been part of security details for a government organization in the past, our government issued radios don't always work, especially inside large buildings. (Think of the same folks who designed your tax forms trying to make a working radio.) I've found my mobile to be invaluable to make sure the car to pick everybody up is outside and waiting when the principal is ready to go.
Technology is tool that can be used either for good or for evil. By jamming the airwaves, you're preventing everybody from using it and trying to technology from changing the way you do business.
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!
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).
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).
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Perhaps even more dangerous. Doctors and other emergency workers need to be accesible by cellphone. (And any other person who has an "on call" type of job. Howdy IT folks ;-) )
A major reason you don't see jammers etc. in movie theatres for a bit is some people need their phones to work. Hopefully at somepoint we'll have smart phones that can be set to ring only for doctors etc. if desperately needed. If not, only allow phones to vibrate.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
in a disaster? The phone service.
Vital communication would be jammed exactly when it was most needed by the very people who would need it most. Set off a bomb in a crowded mall NEAR the center of the action and the emergency services might not hear of it until somebody drove over and told them.
All of downtown New York was without land phone service for days, weeks and my old neighborhood (Battery Park City,) was affected for months after the attack on the WTC.
Cell phones were dead too because there was no power available to the repeaters but those were reestablished within hours or days with mobile power units and mobile repeaters driven in on trucks.
This is yet another example of bureaucratic thinking at its best: Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I would want the badge number of the fool who thought that one up. And I would hold him/her and the judge who is allowing this stupidity so we can hold them responsible for any deaths due to the inability of the authorities to respond.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
> It's not just the bad guys who use mobile phones. Having been
> part of security details for a government organization...
So you're a bad guy too. Where's the counter-example?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
The lesson comes at a high cost for many Canadians (witness the breakdown of their health care system),
/. But I also recognize that health care, like food, clothing and shelter, is a basic human need whereas software is a luxury item. I think that difference in need versus luxury should have some bearing on a discussion as to the economic viability of solutions to a growing problem.
I am not totally familiar with the Canadian health care system. My understanding is that it's administered by the provinces, and that there has been a lot of discussion as of late of doctor shortages and so forth.
But recently someone on a local usenet newsgroup made this same claim you are making, and in the same note tried to imply that the US health care system is perfectly fine because of it's capitalist nature. (as opposed to the evil of socialism) So I was curious and started looking for some facts.
What I found is that life expectancy in the US is less than other G8 nations which have socialized health care(France, Germany, Canada, UK, Italy, Japan) with the exception of Russia. Furthermore the infant mortality rate is also higher in the US compared to the other G8 nations, again with the exception of Russia.
On top of that, the amount spent on health care in the US per capita is much greater... in the neighborhood of double. This despite(or maybe because of?) something like 40-60 million Americans lacking health insurance.
So I guess I'm puzzled. If Canada's system has broken down, what term do we use to describe the US system? A complete failure?
I'm a pretty big proponent for capitalism, as can be evidenced by my ridicule of the GPL proponents and the Microsoft antitrust trial on
If the best capitalism can do for healthcare is drive costs up without yielding any demonstrable benefits measured by statistical indicators perhaps we should be looking at alternatives?
i love my freedoms as a Canadian, and i love my cell phone, and i fully support peoples rights to peacefull demonstration.
I live in Ottawa. during the g8 conference a group of protesters has vowed to disrupt life in the city, and refused to talk to police, or make statements to discourage violence, infact they have encouraged it. Business are boarding up, and citizens are scared.
I do not like when people come to my home and destroy it for there own political goals. I understand the reasons not to block trafic, however, anything that can be done to keep my home from being destroyed by these protestors MUST be done.
civil disobediance is onething (gandhi practiced it, and never once struck out at anyone) wantan distruction of property is another.
before you comment, to this article about how your liberties and freedoms are being taken away by the authorities, think about what you would want if your home town was suddenly faced with thousands of violent protestors.
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.
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
I make a reasonable middle-class wage by going to work and not spamming blogs with scams.
What really kills me is that the topic of whether or not Canada is a capitalist society or not.
/. would.
Who cares? Canadians? Great! They should!
American? Why? It's their freakin' country - they make their own decisions. What's right for use may or may not be right for them, but it's their freakin' decision!
/. is turning into society of nosy old women, poking their noses in everyone else's business and bitching and moaning when they don't do like
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Here are a few points to add to it:
1.) The jamming would be localized to the event. There'd be lots of people there. Somebody calling 911 from a Cell phone is going to make the dispatcher's job lots more difficult than somebody calling from a pay phone. Imagine trying to find somebody hurt in a sea of people.
2.) There'll be *lots* of security at a place like that, so if somebody does get hurt, calling 911 from a cell phone wouldn't be as useful as hunting down a security guard. (I'm sure that'll draw debate, I'm just trying to establish that cell phone usage during this type of event is probably not going to be that high.)
3.) Are you willing to go to a public event like that without adequate security measures? I honestly don't know how most people feel. We just had the Rose Parade here in Portland where a few military ships docked. This year, I live right by the river that these boats travel down. I'm less than a city block away from where they were docked.
I was a little nervous about spending a whole lot of time there, but the extra security made me more comfortable. Though some of my freedomes were gone (they really restricted travel around that area), I felt like there was little that could happen.
But if the security was as lax as last year, I'm not sure I'd feel so good about hanging around there.
There are those who have no fear, I do not speak for them. I'm just saying "Does the extra security make you feel more comfortable?"
To me, losing my cell phone over it at a public event like the Pope coming isn't that big of deal. That doesn't mean I'll lay down and take everything they want to do, it just sounds reasonable for the moment. I won't accept jamming at movie theaters, airports, or places that are public every single day, though.
"Derp de derp."
If Canadian officials are willfully disregarding the provisions of their own constitution, who are you to throw rocks? You[r supreme court] elected George W., thus creating the least constitutionally responsible executive branch in the past hundred years...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah, it's called democracy, and it's alive and well, and overwhelmingly Canadians support "socialist" health care (which, in reality, means "We all agree to buy into the big health insurance policy"). The people who make the choices are the electorate which goes to the polls and makes its feelings known.
Of course, as I mentioned in another post, the only Americans who "choose" not to have health insurance are the very poor who can't afford it. What a great choice.