Slashdot Mirror
We're Jammin', Hope You Like Jammin' Too
theodp writes "Slate ponders whether a climate where anything can be photographed or surreptitiously recorded means the once-esoteric world of cell-phone jamming will become mainstream. Sites now offer portable cell-phone jammers that can provide you with the same kind of security bubbles used to thwart industrial spies, hostage-takers and bomb detonators. While actively jamming a cell-phone signal is illegal in the US, a distributor reports most of his sales go to US customers, including universities which use the technology to stop students from diddling away on phones during lectures."
What? Wouldn't blocking the cell phone signal only prevent the person from sending the picture off? The photograph could still be taken and simply sent later, once the cell phone is away from the jamming signal, right?
At first I thought this post had something to do with music!
I wouldn't mind being able to jam phones within, say, 10 feet of me. One of my biggest pet peeves is people on their cell phones. Because, you know, the further away they are, the louder you have to yell into the phone for them to hear you...
http://wsulug.org
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Sorry, but we cannot sell this cell phone jammer to UK customers
:)
Apparently, it's not very legal in the UK either
any technology that allows for people to protect their privacy within reason should be allowed and accepted.
Cell phone jamming should be legalized, and it should become more widespread.
I'd specifically like to see cell-phones jammed in movie theaters, and schools. I'm pretty good about shutting my phone off when I go to these places, but sometimes I forget, and sometimes when I forget, I get calls... it'd be a whole lot easier if the building disabled the phone for me, so I don't have to.
The operation of transmitters designed to jam or block wireless communications is a violation of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"). See 47 U.S.C. Sections 301, 302a, 333. The Act prohibits any person from willfully or maliciously interfering with the radio communications of any station licensed or authorized under the Act or operated by the U.S. government. 47 U.S.C. Section 333. The manufacture, importation, sale or offer for sale, including advertising, of devices designed to block or jam wireless transmissions is prohibited. 47 U.S.C. Section 302a(b). Parties in violation of these provisions may be subject to the penalties set out in 47 U.S.C. Sections 501-510. Fines for a first offense can range as high as $11,000 for each violation or imprisonment for up to one year, and the device used may also be seized and forfeited to the U.S. government
o ns/blockingjamming.html
From
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/cellular/operati
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
CF and Memory Stick expansion is beginning to be commonplace in these camera phones. Jamming delays transmission from "100% Live", but does little else.
You want to shoot X-Rays strong enough to wipe Flash Mem? Be my guest!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Maybe this problem would never have gotten started if people had been responsible with their phones to begin with? But no, and here are the consequences.
preventing diddling on phones during lectures, and cheating during exams I think are perfectly fine uses of cell-phone jammers and should be illegal. I also think all variety of theatres should employ this technology so the asshole who doesn't turn his phone off wont distract/annoy the entire audience when his annoying ring tone blares out 10 times. And rather than turn his phone off he pretends it wasn't him.
Of course, this can also be used for evil. Big evil. If I had a portable jammer I could bring it to a bank and prevent everyone from calling 911 as I robbed it. I think that's why these things are illegal.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
While I'm tempted to use this to silence those inconsiderate bastards in the movie theaters, there is a LOT of risk involved. How would you feel if, because of your jamming, someone didn't get an important emergency phone call and got fired / dumped / beaten senseless / etc.? If something were to happen because they didn't get a call, and it was found out that you were jamming the phone, could you be held liable for any proven damages?
Regardless of how rude it is for people to be talking on cell phones anywhere and everywhere, you have no right to decide for yourself, "They shouldn't be talking, so I'll stop them."
1) Build a device which detects the jamming signal.
2) Sell it to "those anti-social types" (quote from article) who would like to use their phone
3) Watch them kick each others butt
I don't have a cell phone. There's too much drama involved.
While it is clearly illegal to jam the signal their is nothing against constructing buildings that jams the signal by just the nature of how the radio signal travels through the building.
HEre an article on home to legal jam cell phones.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
As much as i can see the reasoning (pres. safety, remotely controlled bombs, etc...), it still leaves a bad taste of "some are more equal than others" in your mouth. Security (even presidential) & military should abide the law just as anybody else. Change that stupid law, if necessary.
IMHO such a law is not logical anyway: since when does some cell-phone operator "own" the airwaves of e.g. my living room, or more to the point, my restaurant / movie theatre. What exact difference does active / passive jamming make w.r.t the law (if it's on my very own property)? How do they justify the (il)legality of one or the other...
what the position here in Germany is, I dunno... Does anybody else, I'm curious.
the dulcet tones of Chief Wiggum in my head all morning...
Years later, a doctor will tell me that I have an I.Q. of 48, and am what some people call "mentally retarded".
Here's another page on the same "cellphone-like" product.
I don't agree with random people able to jam the phone signal. However, it makes sense for certain places, like movie theaters, banks, etc, although they should clearly have a sign saying "Warning: Cellphone signal jamming inside the building" or something.
If a criminal is attacking you right now a cell phone is mostly useful as a second-rate bludgeon. Or maybe, with phones getting so small these days, you could get him to swallow it and use it as a tracking device :-/
But being able to call emergency services can be very important in the phases leading up to an attack. It can also be helpful for witnesses who can't get physically involved to summon the police or ambulance. This changes all that.
I see it as most frightening in cases where the attacker has a lot personally invested in the crime. The abusive ex. The stalker. The dangerously obsessed. In those cases, where the defender needs every available resource, the sudden disappearance of an important tool can be a matter of life and death. We've already seen stalkers use GPS transponders to track their ex girlfriends' cars. So there are at least a few geeks gone bad out there.
I'm afraid I don't have any solutions. These things are already illegal to use. Any thoughts on what a prospective victim or the authorities can do? And yes, I've already factored in "Have a gun." It's not an option for everyone. It is only part of the soluation when it is.
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
What? Wouldn't blocking the cell phone signal only prevent the person from sending the picture off? The photograph could still be taken and simply sent later, once the cell phone is away from the jamming signal, right?
This is true. But I don't think that's the primary application of cellphone jammers.
Yeah, well, Beethoven's Fifth, being played through a crappy 2" piezoelectric disk speaker as the ringtone on some Nokia in a movie theater. That's the best reason for jamming that I can come up with. (Why custom ring tones? Don't people know those things sound as stupid as coffee can mufflers on Honda Civics?)
I have had cellphones with work, and was glad to get rid of them when I did. I have no interest in being on an electronic leash, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere. Or standing in the line-up at Wal*Mart, the ring and promptly following, "Hey, it's me. Whatcha doing? Wanna come over?" (Who is "me"? If I slept with this person, it must not have been very memorable.)
In short, I *hate* cellphones.
Quoting from article: including universities which use the technology to stop students from diddling away on phones during lectures.
Hey, if the student diddles quietly, it's his funeral when his GPA drops and he gets kicked out of school.
Cellphones with integrated digital cameras might have their place, though. I know a university student whose math professor puts excellent and comprehensive notes on the blackboard. So he started to bring a digital camera and a small tripod to class, and takes pictures of each blackboard full of material. He sent me a sample a while ago. An integrated camera/phone would never run out of available internal memory. Personally, copying the notes down would help me remember the material, but whatever works for him... there's a certain style of practical problem solving skill at work there: he's a second-year engineering student; I think I'll have to hire him when he's done. :)
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
So he started to bring a digital camera and a small tripod to class, and takes pictures of each blackboard full of material.
Oh, I just found another sample. Ugh... more sequences and series; I hated that stuff.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
My first thought when reading this was one of glee... I'd LOVE to jam those dolts that insist on yakking on their cell phones during the movie.
Also, where I work (critical care area of the hospital), cell phones are explicitly forbidden, so this might be useful to keep in my lab coat pocket ("What? your cell phone just cut out? Hmmm... must be interference from our cardiac monitors") Yes, I'm sure their conversation is critically important, but accurate telemetry from my unstable cardiac patients interests me far more than somebody telling their friends which bar they'll be patronizing when they get discharged from my ER. You wouldn't even believe how torqued (even violent) some people can get if you ask them to turn off their phone... it's not like you're telling them to STFU; you're just asking them to take their conversation outside. I have no problem with someone communicating with their family to apprise them of a patient's condition... but we have land-lines for that, folks; you just have to walk ten feet...
Now if they had one that only blocked outgoing calls...
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
There's a cute little brewpub in Solon Iowa with prominent sign stating that anyone whose cell phone goes off buys a round for the house.
..
There's more than one way to deal with inappropriate rings
Does that remotely-switch-off-cellphone-camera-thing also decapitate your regular digital camera? I'd be very surprised (and impressed). Seems like more security snake-oil to me.
Don't people know those things sound as stupid as coffee can mufflers on Honda Civics?
:)
In my experience, the people "rocking" Beethoven (or, even better, some sort of Dragonball Z-inspired theme) on their cells are the people who then drive off in their coffee-can mufflered, lowered, clear-taillight Civic hatchbacks. So the answer to your question is no
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Nothing is more annoying that going out to eat and some asshole is hollering on a freaking phone, "CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?" every 10 seconds as he chats with his pals about absolute nonsense while you are trying to have a quiet dinner.
Not too long ago they had phone booths in restaurants and if you had to talk to someone you went to the phone booth and closed the door.
I do not give a shit, nor do I want to hear other people's conversations. I don't want to hear beepers or cellphones going off.
Why do people have to make so damn much noise? Loud motors, loud stereos, loud machinery, loud computers, loud refrigerators, everyone has to be noisy. And as the noise level goes up, people holler louder to go over it.
When I was a little kid I HATED when my mother used to tell me "Silence is golden".. Now I know how very right she was.
Jamm on baby...
Cellphone jammers are a bad idea on several levels. I'm just waiting to see the news story about someone who has a heart attack or epileptic seizure hit, and that the victim died because someone tried to use their cellphone to call for help, but said phone was within range of a jamming device.
I suspect it would be reported that the few extra seconds (or minutes) taken for the caller to get out of range of said device, and call for help, could have made all the difference in the world.
Take that another way: What if someone's within range of one of these things, and someone tries to call them to let them know that their wife or roomie or whoever has been critically injured, or fallen seriously ill? Seems to me that whoever's operating the jammer under such conditions could be in for some serious litigation.
Another example. Lots of firefighters and paramedics are beginning to depend on cellphones for much of their communications. I can only imagine the consequences if someone in the area is operating a jammer.
I know others have posted that they'd like to jam something "just within ten feet" of themselves, but -- news flash! -- a jamming signal, by its very nature, cannot be limited in this way. In the world of RF, when you radiate a signal, it's going to radiate all over the place. The only way you can control where it goes is to put a Faraday cage (read: shielded enclosure) around the area you want to irradiate (and I think people would look mighty silly walking around in copper-mesh suits, with their 'tail' of a grounding wire).
In other words: Any signal powerful enough to overcome a cellphone's normal exchange with a nearby cell site is going to have to be powerful enough to radiate a lot further than ten feet, period.
A REAL solution to the problem would be (guess what?) education and attitude adjustment. Get people to the point where turning their phones OFF (or at least putting them into 'Silent Ring' mode) is a reflex action for restaurants, movie theaters, etc. Start such teaching early ("Responsible Cellphone Use 101" anyone?), perhaps including it as part of common courtesy and manners, and it'll be something that's useful for life.
Cellphone users really need a strong reminder that their world is not going to collapse if they don't catch every call the millisecond it comes in. At the rate we're going, I won't be surprised to learn that "cellphone addiction" becomes a very real medical or psychological disorder in times to come.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
In a restaurant, for example, it's perfectly fine for two people physically in the restaurant to be talking loudly at each other (in fact, in many restaurants everyone's talking loudly at each other), and yet no one would think of wandering over there and telling them to shut up. Conversely, people would be perfectly in their rights to expect two people talking in a movie theater to be quiet once the show starts, and it should be the same with cell phones.
This means that this type of problem would be more easily solved by just having areas where people are expected to be quiet (like theaters) do passive shielding, which is already legal. It's legal, costs cell phone users nothing, and isn't subject to vigilante jamming. Improperly used, both cell phones and phone jammers can become an annoyance.
I will use my psychic mind reading powers to say that you must be atleast 35.
How come every generation of old people feels the need to criticize every new technology that comes around by mis-characterizing it?
I have no interest in being on an electronic leash, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere
If you put yourself in a situation where you're "on an electronic leash", then that's your fault. Do you realize that you don't have to answer a cell phone whenever it rings? It's pretty nifty technology, you have to press a button to answer it.
If you say that the advantages of having a cell phone aren't worth it for you, that's fine. But the only real disadvantage is how much it costs and having to carry it in your pocket. The whole leash thing simply tells me something about your relationship with the would-be leash-holder.
I imagine some older folks didn't like the telephone when it came out - I refuse to be on a leash when I'm at home, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere.
I can't think of a better place for them to be than in movie theaters or at the opera houses of the world. Since these companies are apparently trying to figure out how to remotely disable cell phone cameras, perhaps they could somehow remotely force peoples phones into vibrate or something.
Shades of Spaceballs....
... hmmm... rasberry... dude, youre getting jammed!
Caller: yadda yadda yadda... huh? *blink* *blink*
Bystander: Whats wrong?
Caller: I just got cut off... and there's this goop comming out of my cell..
Bystander: *rubs finger in goop* *licks finger*
A Human Right
The space inside a private building is private property, and the owner/controller can put anything in it they want that is lawful to possess, including noisy radio waves in a given band at low power. However, my phone is private property, and no one may interfere with it within the physical boundaries of its case. They can jam the waves from my antenna in their air, but they can't send "off" commands inside the phone. So they might claim some kind of "performance" rights, and perhaps copyrights, on the appearance of objects inside, but they can't materially prevent me from snapping a picture and taking it outside, without violating my property rights. The professional photographer and art communities have been fighting that one out; perhaps we can take a lesson from them, or perhaps their commercial rights to the appearance of their property conflicts too much with the traditional reality where beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
--
make install -not war
I'm sure I'm not the only IT person who has to turn on a cell phone in movie theater. In my case, I can check and respond to a situation with WAP or more modern browser. Who says you need to make noise?
I own my business... I'm on call 24x7 but work 50 hours a week (sometimes more, sometimes less).
I love the freedom of being able to go into a movie and only having to read a couple text messages. I keep my phone on my lap, try not to create any light pollution.
For all those who think jamming is cool - why not just force people to use silent text messaging or web browsing?
I mean a silent pager with vibrate worked for me in the 1980's? Is it these stupid new kids who don't think that are causing all of us to suffer?
Cretinous users of Nextel phones have got to be the worst. For those who haven't experienced this, it's all the fun of hearing one side of a conversation, together with the other side of the conversation, _and_ a piercing BEEP-BEEP when the half-duplex switches directions. Beyond the merely rude, these devices monopolize any environment they're in. So far, my only countermeasures have been to face the user and shout "Breaker 1-9" at random intervals.
I think a taser might be a more interesting solution.
;)
They have a stand-off distance of 15 feet, so you should have no problem creating a nice quiet area around you.
Happy hunting
GL
I will use my psychic mind reading powers to say that you must be atleast 35.
Heheh... Nope, but I'm old beyond my years.
How come every generation of old people feels the need to criticize every new technology that comes around by mis-characterizing it?Actually, I love technology; my career choices undoubtedly reflect that.
If you put yourself in a situation where you're "on an electronic leash", then that's your fault. Do you realize that you don't have to answer a cell phone whenever it rings? It's pretty nifty technology, you have to press a button to answer it.I know. But the reality is that when the phone rings, you feel obliged to answer it. Then, pretty soon, it's a nuisance and makes you feel guilty.
Of course, you can turn off the ringer. Then, the problem becomes, "Huh-NEEEEEEE... Why didn't you answer the phone when I called? What were you doing?"
People become accustomed to being able to reach you and talk to you about every stupid little thing that happens in their lives.
For the very same reason I eschew land-line telephones or ICQ and other messaging systems, and like e-mail: It's a constant interruption. With e-mail, on the other hand, the sender can send the message when it's convenient for them. I can then read it and reply when it's convenient for me. Telephones, in particular cellphones, require it to be convenient for both parties to talk at the same time.
If you say that the advantages of having a cell phone aren't worth it for you, that's fine. But the only real disadvantage is how much it costs and having to carry it in your pocket. The whole leash thing simply tells me something about your relationship with the would-be leash-holder.Okay. Try this. Turn off your cellphone for a week. Tell me what you get from your friends. "I tried to call you, but you didn't answer." Endlessly. You've built up the expectation that you will be available to discuss all sorts of stupid things, including the weather, any time they're feeling bored in the lineup at the grocery store.
My friends know how I feel about cellphones, and telephones in general. We communicate by e-mail. We arrange to get together to drink beer by e-mail.
I imagine some older folks didn't like the telephone when it came out - I refuse to be on a leash when I'm at home, forced to be accountable to someone - somewhere.For sure. But there's still the escape with a regular telephone. If you don't answer your land line, they assume that you're out. If you don't answer your cellphone - which, by tradition, is always with you - then they assume that you're ignoring them.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Not terrible arguments, but I still maintain you're putting yourself in that situation. Tell your wife and friends:
"Look... I don't feel like answering my phone all the time, and I don't always have it on me anyway. Leave a message."
I know when I call someone's cell phone and they don't answer, I assume they don't have it on them or they're in an area where they don't get service.
In other words, people who are desperately starved for attention, and willing to look as ridiculous as possible to get it.
wtf is the point in jamming phone signals for university students in lectures.
If someone isnt paying attention, or causing any kind of disruption, you kick them out, as i saw several lecturers do in my days as a student.
University students dont have to be in every lecture, they are not forced to sit through it, and its not like theyre school kids and theres some legal obligation to teach them.
If the lecture bores you, or you think nattering on your phone is more important, get the feck out and copy someones notes later.
Blocking mobile phones in order to try and force getting peoples attention is just another example of the growing trend in todays society to look for inappropriate technical solutions to social and discipline problems that have always had an effective old-fashioned solution, if only every one wasnt so lazy and/or afraid of frivolous law suits.
Jamming is a solution, but simply being able to locate and reprimand people with cell phones would probably be better in the long run.
:P . With a little more work, you could probably tune them to the 2Ghz cell phone frequencies to increase their range and do some triangulation to cover a larger room, and put it on a public display so everyone could see who was violating the no cell phone rule, or forgot to turn them off, etc.
First of all, it's a sociological solution. If people know they can be detected, they would simply concentrate on following the "no cellphone" rule, rather than trying to be discreet or circumventing jamming mechanism (which would lead to a jamming/anti-jamming escalation).
The detector wouldn't have to be so complex (though it would certainly be tres cool to have a tricorder-like 3D spectrum analyzer). It could be as simple as a wand hooked up to an amplified speaker
Sorry, I'm not 35 and I'm another cell phone hater.
Are the devices inherently evil? Of course not. However, in the vast majority of people who have them, they encourage behavior that ranges from irritating to extremely annoying to downright dangerous.
I know any number of otherwise nice people who will answer these things (or at least reflexively check the screen) in the middle of face-to-face conversations, which is the height of rudeness. Some of these people do it enough that I really don't enjoy hanging around them anymore. For one of them it's even caused problems with her marriage - her husband can't stand it either and she doesn't seem to be able to kick the habit.
On trains, the racket of cellphones ringing and getting yacked into has destroyed what was once a restful way to travel. Other public spaces have suffered as well. People who are able to maintain normal volume levels when talking with the person next to them are for some reason unable to resist screaming their stupid inane shit into the little plastic box. In fact, I think one of the upsetting things about cell phones is that by raising the volume level of conversations I'm exposed to, it's correspondingly raised my awareness of what morons most people are. I'd like to think it's just that the same people who choose to have cellphones are also subintelligent twits, but depressingly I've seen no particular basis for that.
And, of course, almost every time I look into the window of a car after it's executed some brain-dead maneuver on the city streets (last-minute unsignalled turns, cutting other drivers off, almost mowing down pedestrians in crosswalks, etc.), the driver has a phone stuck to his/her ear.
If the price came down to about $100 I'd happily buy a jammer and carry it always.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Curry chicken from a chinese place? :)
Odd
Sure, some cellphone users are inconsiderate, but you don't blame every driver on the road, just the ones who drive recklessly. Also, I find it interesting that you talk about revenge, isn't dropping people conversations a form of revenge for their offending you with their conversations? When you get your jammer, I doubt if you'll politely ask anyone "Do you mind me making the service you pay for and posibly need unavailable", or will you just decide for them.
Just because you were wondering about my reality, my bill tells me that I use about 150/minutes a month, I'd say 20% are work related, and 60% my wife, and the other 20% my family. I am not a "heavy cellphone user", but I need to be sure that the phone is on. When my phone vibrates (I always keep it on vibrate and in my pocket), and I am in a public place, I answer it with a short low "hello", then either "I'm sorry I can't talk right now" or "hold on", but then again I am generally very civil. Maybe that is how you act, but I seem to think of you as less civil.
A definition of self-rightous is someone who would do an illegal act just because they think they are right. Not paying attention to the road (cellphone, radio, sex) is often called reckless driving, and as others have pointed out jamming transmitions of radio is also illegal. Both of those are wrong.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
The problem many people are having isn't that cell phones are fundamentally, the problem is that there are idiots using cell phones. But those same idiots drive recklesses, double-park, run cars without mufflers at 4 in morning, and engage in a host of other socially unacceptable activities. Would you ban cars because some people are idiots?
Specific silly objections:
But people use it in restaurants, and that's rude.. How is it rude? Many people specifically go to restaurants to talk with other people. Is taking to someone remotely fundamentally worse? If they're being too loud you do what you would do if someone was being loud talking to the companion: ask them to quiet down. Now, if you're dining with someone and that someone proceeds to take a call while you sit there, that's rude. But it's only rude to you. The answer isn't to disable the cell phone, the answer is to dine with non-rude people.
People use it movie theatres, and that's rude. Indeed it is. And the occasional gaggles of high school kids behind me laughing at the serious drama are also being rude. The answer? Tell them to shut up. Point out that if they want to continue their conversation they can do so from the lobby.
People use it in public, and that's rude. That's just surreal. Would you be complaining if their friend was instead standing right next to them talking? It's a public space, people talk, learn to live with it.
If you have a cell phone you're on a leash and always have to answer it. That's just a silly habit; break it. Get a phone with silent alertand leave it in vibrate mode all of the time. If you don't want to take a call now, just ignore it (on many phones you can hit hang-up and immediately shunt them to voice mail). If it might be important check the caller idea. Not important? Ignore it. Most cell phone plans come with free voice mail. Use it. If you have someone who gets pissy when you don't answer, politely explain that would rather not be on a leash to them. If they still insist you should answer they're rude, get more polite friends. (If it's your boss, get a new cell phone number and don't admit to your boss that you have it. I see no reason for my boss to have my cell phone number. If your boss is paying for the phone... well... high availability is probably what he's paying you for.)
There are plenty of good uses for cell phones, even in movie theatres. A friend of mine is a sysadmin and is on call every few weekends. He could simply sit at home all weekend, or he could take the chance that he might get a call while he's at a movie. If no call arrives, he enjoys the movie. If a call arrives it's unfortunate, but he knew the risk. He's very polite, when his work phone rings he immediately leaves the theatre to answer it.
Ultimately cell phone jammers are a crude solution that harms good users of cell phones as much as rude users. The answer is to educate and mock stupid users until they get the picture.
Search 2010 Gen Con events
The problem with jamming cellphones is that a jamming device is non-selective and renders the entire phone useless, even when it is not necessary. For example, in a movie theatre all you want is to disable the voice services and alert tones, but there is no reason to disable text/SMS reception and sending, if individuals want to do that. In fact jamming the cellphone signal can be counterproductive. GSM phones will up their transmit power if they can't get decent reception, in effect reducing battery time and *increasing* the possibility of interference with nearby electronic equipment. In an environment with sensitive electronic equipment, jamming is the last thing you want.
What I would like to see is some way of providing context information to a cellphone, so that the cellphone can decide for itself what would be appropriate behaviour. A movie theatre, for example, might have a small [bluetooth] transmitter that tells all nearby phones that they are in a theatre, and the phones automatically switch off voice services and ring tones. In a hospital context the phone might switch its transmitter off automatically, but still allow the owner to look at the onboard phonebook. A library context might switch off the ring tone and switch on the vibrating alert.
This is obviously something that would have to be supported by the manufacturer. I hope they are reading.