Slashdot Mirror


Cell-Phone Wars

Makarand writes "According to this article in the Houston Chronicle people fed up with cell phone chatter have declared war against cell phones. They are arming themselves with detectors, jammers and other gizmos to defend privacy, security, sanity and blissful silence. Although jamming cell phones is not legal in the US, pocket-sized jammers are available online and even on eBay. Cell-phone jammers typically work by disrupting the communication between handsets and cellular towers by flooding an area with interference or selectively blocking signals by broadcasting on frequencies used by these phones. The FCC has received very few complaints about jammed cell phones and has never taken action against anyone for that violation."

13 of 992 comments (clear)

  1. Misleading article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The 'Safe Haven' system by Iceberg is not a camera phone jammer.

    It's basically a feature that needs to be built into the phone. When it receives a certain signal it disables the camera. Iceberg claim it could be used for laptops and PDA's but neglect to mention that disabling the technology would be trivial for any determined pervert.

    The complaints over camera phones are pretty idiotic anyway. The determined pervert could just use a tiny camera if they really wanted to take photo's anywhere.

    I'm not paying Nokia et al to integrate technology that selectively disables my phone. It reminds me the recent debacle about printers with built in mechanisms to defeat currency copying. I'd rather Nokia and HP spent their time working on useful new features than trying to nursemaid me.

    If you are worried about someone taking your photo in the locker room, that is your problem.

  2. Re:Safety? by Avihson · · Score: 3, Informative

    What cafes and restaurants do you frequent that do not have a land line for emergencies?

    I don't care if you use a cellphone in public, I just watch you intently and take notes! I only interrupt if I miss part of the conversation.

    You lose your right to privacy when you talk in public. I take advantage of that to embarrass the obnoxious by being just as obnoxious.

  3. Re:Cell phone jamming on private property by jgabby · · Score: 3, Informative

    Being the primary service in the bands they are located, the cell phone providers are entitled to interference protection throughout their service contour, regardless of private property or not. By emitting a signal to purposely interfere, if someone complains, the FCC will likely fine the perpetrator and confiscate the equipment (if they can find him).

    What IS entirely legal however is to design your building such that cell phone signals are unable to penetrate it...For example, by making your building a faraday cage. This I think could be a lucrative business - retrofitting movie theaters to block (not interfere with) the cell phone frequencies.

  4. Re:Cell phone jamming on private property by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

    The act of jamming a cell phone is illegal no matter where you are, even on your own property. Simply put, it's transmitting on a licensed frequency without a license to do so.

    Cell phone companies hold the licenses to any frequency being used for cell phones, and that license extends to their subscribers for using the service only. If you're jamming, you don't have permission to transmit on that frequency, and that's where the FCC can come down on you.

  5. Jammers and Dampers by ldrhcp · · Score: 3, Informative

    Though jamming a cell phone is illegal, it is legal to dampen the signal with certain materials. Strategies like this are already employed in some buildings such as theaters, and if this backlash continues we can expect to see damping in many more public places.

    1. Re:Jammers and Dampers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      Sorry to hear about your problems. Here is another way to approach the problem:
      • Check the ARRL for a ham radio club in your area
      • Ask them where you can find an Official Observer (or OO)
      • The OO has the expertise to track down the interference and will try to resolve the problem.
      • If the OO can't resolve the problem, they should pass the information on to the FCC.
    2. Re:Jammers and Dampers by lscotte · · Score: 3, Informative

      I wish every theater jammed cell phones. The last few movies I've gone to, people around me have not only had their cell phones ring, but actually answered them and had a conversation during the movie.

      --
      This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
  6. Re:Not good by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Informative
    As somebody who's spent a lot of time in the service industry [i.e. Mcdonalds!] it really is rude how many people will answer the phone while ignoring their place in line...not paying attention to the service they're requesting, but of course they won't step aside and allow the next person to place their order....so they then snear and shout at the cashier or other customers because Those other people are in the way?

    It's about respect for your fellow person...starting with the one in front of you!!! I can understand the shopkeeper who deals with this 50 times a day. people come to your shop and you can't give good service because they interrupt your transaction with them for the phone....and OFTEN have the nerve to get mad at YOU "because you're taking too long!" Not to mention disrupting other customers patiently standing in line with loud disagreements, or lack of attention to what's going on around them. It's a menace!!!

    That said, jamming or blocking phones isn't the answer, it just makes people ruder! Cell phones have spread the general problem of computers to the masses...computers have allowed businesses to micromanage and interrupt business plans on moment's notice...cell phones allow thoses same types of people to deal with everything NOW...instead of budgeting their time and attention to allow their responsibilites to be properly performed...And THAT is the bigger problem with "instant everything"!!

    The main tool to fight this would be better voicemail/sms messages...allowing people to be notified of messages, but keep the phone off until they can give proper attention, those tools are available, but still don't work that well for every minute use. Businesses with "quiet, private places" for phone conversations would help too...they wiped out most phone booths about 10 years ago and didn't replace the "space" to make communications in.

  7. Re:No complaints now, but... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 5, Informative

    The biggest factor in determining whether someone will survive a major heart attack is how fast the paramedics arive. The 2 minutes it takes to get outside the jamming range or find a land line phone may be 2 minutes more than someone has.

    The good news is that they're putting automatic defibrilators in airports and malls, which are saving lives everyday.

    -B

  8. Re:This would be in America. right? by SpectreGadget · · Score: 3, Informative

    To clarify, in most of America, there is signal, but not necessarily the signal you need. It might be the signal for a rival service provider that you can't get on. It's too fragmented to guarantee service for your phone everywhere.

    --
    Jim Harry
  9. Re:No complaints now, but... by CaptainJeff · · Score: 5, Informative

    Absolutely not. CPR keeps blood moving in the body in a forced way, very dissimiliar to the heart's natural movement. CPR aims to keep that person revivable by spreading oxygenated blood around the body - it has an approaching zero chance of actually reviving someone. For someone experiencing a cardiac arrest, the most important action that can be taken is early defib. The parent is correct - these AED devices are going everywhere and they are so easy to use that an average 8 year old can successfully use them if need be. True story - I have seen someone defibed who was without a pulse for around 5 minutes, within 20 seconds he was talking and fully aware. AEDs are that effective. I have NEVER seen anyone regain their pulse after CPR - it simply does not happen.

  10. Re:This would be in America. right? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know about US networks, but in the GSM network, emergency calls (112) have to get through even if you are on a different network, or haven't paid your subscription.

    AFAIK, US is the same - in fact there are charities that will collect old, in-active, cell phones for use as portable 911 (our emergency number) phones.

    --
    Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  11. Re:No complaints now, but... by jcp797 · · Score: 4, Informative

    How did this get modded +5 Informative?

    AEDs are not a magic bullet. AEDs are only effective for two *specific* types of cardiac arrest: v-tach and v-fib. They are not definitely NOT a substitute for CPR. While you may have witnessed a miracle case, recussitation usually requires drugs and constant airflow in addition to shocks.

    It is *essential* to keep the oxygenated blood moving to the brain to prevent tissue death (via CPR), until the paramedics arrive. As the grandparent poster said, The biggest factor in determining whether someone will survive a major heart attack is how fast the paramedics arive.