Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phone Jammers: Coming To An Event Near You?
DarwinDan writes "The L.A. Daily News has an article about Cell phone jamming to prevent terrorists from detonating bombs remotely. Jamming technology is already being used "to protect President Bush." An interesting quote from the article: "Public safety is more important than public convenience.""
So sell phones are only a few frequencies out of the million that could be used to transmit "trigger" signals to bombs. What's to stop a terrorist from using some cheap VHF handheld to denonate their bomb? If they transmit the code over airport security frequencies or whatever, you can almost garuntee those won't be blocked.
Other than that, this is just yet another textbook example of the Bush Administration stomping all over the constitutional rights of its citizenry (but he hasn't really been very supportive of free speech from the get-go anyhow, so you shouldn't be surprised.) When are people going to get pissed off enough at this outrageous behavior and finally vote him out of office? He still seems to be ahead in the polls. Get it together, Americans!
Software piracy is victimless theft.
"Public safety is more important than public convenience"
I'll bet many of the survivors of Sept. 11 2001 made it through because of cell phone communications.
Okay, so lets say you DO run some frequency jammers...and some terrorist decide to use another means of communication to carry out their plans. Now you have a large number of people with no communication outside the affected area. Police/Medics will have a longer time of arriving to the scene. It will take longer to locate injured persons.
$cat
This sort of thing does very little to protect the people at large, while inconveniencing them quite a lot.
The politician on the podium, however, has no use for a cellphone, so s/he won't be inconvenienced at all, while his/her safety is increased.
Once again it's public policy taking care of their own. Seems to be a hallmark of this administration.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Ok. Cell phones are jammed. What about the hogillion other frequencies that could be used to trigger the detonator? What about a timed detonator.
And don't forget the terrorists favourite method - suicide bombing.
I think cell phones are just the most convenient method. They'll find another way in a hurry, you can be sure about that.
-kidlinux.
It's a good thing that I've got my cell phone handy to call 911 with in case I see possible terrorist activity! Oh wait...
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Somewhat appropriate, then, that they GET neither liberty nor safety in 95% of cases.
They lose the liberty to use their cellphone.
They don't get safety because anyone who really wants to blow something up isn't going to be deterred by something as small as a cell phone jammer.
Well yes, I think you're stretching it just a wee bit by saying that cell phone usage is an essential liberty ;)
Imho the real danger lies when someone takes small steps that eventually DO lead to a loss of liberty. If you can't make a big jump, then do a lot of small ones that you can rationalize individually.
A >> B >> C >> D
A to B is perfectly logical, likewise B to C and C to D, but if you step back and look at A and then D you're probably not going to like what you see.
I'm no radio expert, but isn't it still possible that you could simply use some other kind of transmission, rather than cell phones? Say, ham radio, police frequencies, citizen band, or whatever?
Blocking cell phones seems to me to be what's called "security theater." It's all show to make people think they're safe, and (more especially) that the government is "hard at work ensuring the nation's security." (Blah, blah, blah.)
This is good theater, too, because it is something that affects almost everybody at an event, so they're sure not to miss noticing the "hard work." Why, it'll be the talk of the town!
At most, this is 10% security, 90% public relations.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
Which of these is a far more likely risk factor?
1) Terrorists using cell phones to detonate bombs (which can be done with a simple mechanical timer far more easily)
2) Fire, heart attack, drowning, etc. wherein using a cell phone to dial 911 could save lives?
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
It's all very well trying to make it look a balance between public safety and public convenience, but I can't help feeling that if you or I did this sort of thing, we wouldn't be charged with being a nuisance to "public convenience", but quite probably under some terrorism law?
It's very debateable whether the possible loss of life due to disruption to emergency services and the general terror and panic caused to the public is less than the possible lives saved (which requires both that there is a terrorist attack going to happen, and that they are reliant on mobile phones).
Of course, everyone bending over backwards to ensure Bush's safety is nothing new. When he visits the UK, it costs the British taxpayer $8.5 million for security (meanwhile, UK visitors to the US can look forward to such fun as photographing and fingerprinting, but that's another story).
This is somewhat like banning cars from an area. Sure, cars are a convenient way to move people, but hey, it could also be used as a delivery mechanism for an explosive!
Hasn't anyone in America clued up to the idea that 99% of the impact of Terrorism is exploiting FUD? In allowing the freaky controlling elements of society to make life impossible for the rest of the sane people, don't you lose so much more?
And don't give me that "if we can save just one life" crap. If that's the case then ban cigarettes, alcohol and McDonalds. Hell, ban religion and guns while you're at it.
For goodness sake! Stop letting the terrorists run your lives for you! They're winning! Wake up!
While I think most people will agree that jammers are okay to stop terrorists from blowing things up, I don't like the idea of all police having access to this. It seems to be the slippery slope. There is a valid function for this, but then it gets extended and extended. I say leave it to the air force, if there is a need they can fly a plane over the area and block everything. Then afterwards they will have to explain. Don't give it to the police, where 1000's of departments and chiefs of police might decide for themselves when and how to use it. Plus, everyone has heard stories of bad apples in police departments. The last thing they need is a method to shut down communications.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Probably a bad idea: As soon as they got in range of your jammer, they'd look down at their cell phone to check their signal level, not see you (or any other goddamned thing on the road), and BLAMO!
It's bad enough with them dialing the thing at 80Mph.
eleven plus two / twelve plus one
Easier to say it than to do it.
Anyway, I think that the quote doesn't take into account that public safety IS public convenience sometimes. The fact I swear at my cell when someone's jamming it to prevent a bomb from detonating doesn't mean I don't think they should've done that.
And anyway I would say that cell phones are FAR from being an essential liberty.
Diego Rey
diegoT
A jamming device is much more likely to interfere with the hospital equipment than a cell phone. By definition, jamming requires more power than communication, and it has to be spread over wider frequency range.
Timmers are cheap.
RC car remotes aren't cheap but aren't jammed by cell phone jammers and cost less than a cell phone.
But if cost is not an object then use amature radio equipment.
Also why use a pasive signal when you can use an active?
Directly from security alarms. A passive signal means when you trigger it there is a signal, cut the wires and you'll never get a signal.
ACTIVE signal means when you trigger you CUT the signal.
Now we have an active cell phone triggered by a jamming field and you'll never know becouse Jo citazen can't call the police ON HIS CELL PHONE.
We are wrapped up in how technology can be used for evil we lose sight of the fact that it's used for good plus there are easy alternitives to the evil.
Bush: "Why is everyone pointing to the air?"
As millions of people try to call the police about a mistereous RC plane but can't becouse of the cell phone jamming.
At the same time an RC plane packed with explosives is gliding in on target.
also active cell phones are easy enough to detect.
Terrors aren't exactly a creative bunch. They'll keep using cell phones as long as you DON'T jam them.
Jam them and they'll go to other radio detonation technologys or just return to the old faithful suiside bomber.. a trusting kid made to believe he is serving god. (There are plenty of them to go around)
I don't actually exist.
If they knew what they were doing, they'd just get a java-enabled cellphone, and if it wasn't called within some time gap, and the signal suddenly dropped to 0 because it was being jammed, the phone would detonate the bomb based on that. Jamming is just one more hoop they have to hop through to set off the bomb.
If you're at an event important enough to warrant one of these devices, I doubt the authorities are depending on citizens' 911 calls to tell them about emergencies. The police have this nifty gadget called a radio...
This space intentionally left blank.
Not that there aren't hundreds of other ways around this useless technology, but your suggestion would just cause the bomb to blow up as soon as the terrorist carried it into the protected area, most likely having no effect on the intended target (who would be at the center of the area, not at its edges).
Bombs are usually planted in advance. This has several benefits for the bomb-planters, among those being not getting arrested and not getting blown up.
Still, a good old timer does the job as well.
Using some sort of over-the-air detonation can have benefits as well though; for example, say terrorists plant a bomb in some police cars. Upon seeing one of the compromised police cars (they are usually numbered right on the roof) close to the target, they detonate.
They could even just use the police frequencies, since those are unlikely to be blocked, especially when there is a large police presence. Remember, they're terrorists, if they feel like using off-limits frequencies, they can. (If you want to call 911, you're stuck with licensed frequencies).
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
I *don't* see that in the constitution? Where does it say it only applies to political speech? Last time I checked it was only freedom of speech, as in being able to speak freely. Sure, be one of those that interprets as you believe the founding fathers would have wanted it to be interpreted as, but, who says your right? :-) Anyway, on to the expensive cell phones, the fact that they're cheap is a byproduct of our capitalist system (which I like, mind you). There was a large enough demand and the technological background was there to produce these things cheaply. So, blame capitalism! :-) And, I invoke Quirk's law, that an intentional invocation of Godwin's law is void.
Hurricane Ivan: A 17th century prison collapsed. All of the inmates escaped.
Pretty much an example that as soon as you beat the bad guys tech, they change it. Frankly the whole issue regards jammers is best illustrated by why are they protecting our President with it and NOT protecting our soldiers in Iraq with it. If you have someone in your family who is serving in Iraq, buy them a cell phone jammer. They are cheap and available over seas.
In the mean time roast the back side of your congress critter for not supplying this tech for our soldiers to be safe.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
That's what I was thinking, that jamming cell phones in theatres and restaurants would be a good idea. But, remember what happened recently in Russia, when Chechen terrorists took hostages in Moscow theatre.
In that situation, you might call (or SMS) for help, tell how many of them are, where they are, what weapons do they have... Unless your mobile was jammed.
You would most likely turn to security, and paramedics that are on scene. They would be able to respond much more quickly to your family members distress than some random 911 center you get in touch with.
You -> 911 -> E911 lookup -> Local responding rescue squad -> On site rescue squad -> You through the crowd.
or
You -> Local security -> On site rescue squad -> You through the crowd.
The main problem with cell phones nowadays are the issues of pseudo safety and convenience.
"Public safety is more important than public convenience."
FWEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!
False dichotomy.
On the offense.
10 sentences back from the original argument.
Still first down.
FWEEEEEEEEEEEEEP!
Obviously inspired by Hollywood. So what if they decide to use the frequency that the Secret Service uses to communicate? I guess we better block that too. What if they broadcast a codeword on a talk radio show, and a bomb-laden terrorist is listening on a portable AM radio. Better block that band too. So, to cover all the possible frequencies, it'd have to be one heck of a powerful broadband jammer. I guess that's going to interfere with adjacent police and rescue frequencies because of intermod.
Look folks, Al Qaeda didn't use cellphone-triggered remote bombs, tunnels under schools, IRC, or even orbiting brain-lasers, or whatever stupid possibility has been dreamed of by the Department of Paranoia. They used box-cutters. I'm fairly certain that whatever choice they make next is going to be a surprise. It's not going to be something that the US Gov't expects, so let's stop trying to list the millions of possible ways and monitor the thousands of possible targets.
I really wish the hype and paranoia would stop. I used to listen to ("conservative") radio host Monica Crowley, until one night she bleated like a sheep stuck in a fence for an hour about how "we should do everything possible" in regard to airport security. I mean, come on Monica, that's something a 7th grader would say. There's a balance between cost and safety, and nobody in her right mind would suggest spending an unlimited amount of public funds just to make sure we can catch someone who has a box-cutter, because there's a one in a billion chance he might want to also fly an airliner into a building.
Likewise we have El Rushbo, trumpeting that the fact we haven't had an Al Qaeda attack on US soil for one and a half years is proof positive that Bush's strategy is working. As much as I'd like to believe that, the fact is that it costs Al Qaeda money and takes lots of time to plan an act on US soil. The second WTC attack happened almost 8 years after the first. The attacks aren't likely going to stop as long as we're involved in the Mid-East (as long as we back Israel and pull the strings for the Saudi monarchy).
So once again, it's not a choice with absolutes. Either we continue our current policy and some of us get killed every ten years or so, or we trade some other lives for our own, and watch the slaughter of the Jews, the Kurds, or some other religious minority that is sufficiently westernized to perhaps believe in freedom, interest on money, rights for women, or perhaps not stoning people to death for breaking society's rules. Or, we pick something inbetween, and successive presidents jump to either side of the fence (like the case now). One thing I can be sure of is that some US citizens are going to have a shot at stopping the next attack, just like the last one. So maybe this time we won't behave like subservient little hoplophobic sheep, and someone will fight back with deadly force to spare the lives of others.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
That falls under the second amendment. The government tries to take away my freedom of expression, I try and take away the government.
There are 11 types of people in the world: those who can count in binary, and those who can't.
An actual emergency made worse by cell phone jamming:
Citizen 1: "Hello, hello?". "Dammit, I can't get through on this thing."
Citizen 2: "Better just assume its a normal hijacking then.
As they slip back in their seats, Citizen 1: "Okay, we'll cooperate fully. We don't want anyone to get hurt."
The terrorist smirks. Some time later, Flight 93 slams into the White House.
The above scenario is obviously fictitious. The passengers of Flight 93 did not have their cell phones jammed. They did find out about the other planes hitting the WTC, and they did choose to sacrifice themselves to save lives.
But as cell phones have already proven their usefulness in saving lives during a terrorist attack, it is ridiculous to be jamming them now.
Regarding the issue of telephone rights:
1) The government, using my tax money, set up the 911 service so I could get the help of police, fire, etc. if I really need it. Use of this service requires a telephone. As often 911 calls deal with the safety of the community (bank robbery, finding trapped people in a disaster, terrorism), jamming them endangers the community.
2) Cell service is paid for. Under the Fifth Amendment (Bill of Rights), I require compensation if the government disrupts it.
Movie (December 1998): "The great devil will come from the sky!"
Video Subtitle (Summer 1999): "The King of Terror is coming!"
American Version (May 2003): "The King of Terror!"
Moll, "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks" / "Rebirth of Mothra 3"
Once the public gets used to cellphone "dead zones", people will start using jammers in other areas for other reasons. How about at a movie theatre or concert? A fancy restaurant?
Great. Sign me up.
Seriously, I'd be happy to pay a premium if the movie or restaurant I was thinking of going to advertised itself as using jamming gear, perhaps, with a little marketing pizazz, they might tout that a "Self-Absorbed Idiot Free-Area" was available.
Doctors and firefighters, of course, would be wise to avoid these venues.
I could equate your argument with attempts to censor "objectionable material" and profanity from TV, radio, and print media. You seem to assume some basic right to not be annoyed, just as supporters of censorship assume a right to not be offended.
The fact is, there is no such right to not be annoyed, and there is no right to not be offended. If I keep my cellphone on vibrate during movies, at restaurants, etc... why should I be prevented from getting urgent messages? I think the solution (as has been suggested) is to fine people who fail to comply with silence rules in certain circumstances.
You would use a personal cellphone jammer? What if a firefighter, on-call police officer, EMT, doctor, etc. missed a call that could have saved someone's life? Would you really want that on your conscience? There's a very good reason why those are illegal.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
Strange you should say this, because two seperate people's cell phones went off when I was watching van helsing, and a few other people had various things that beeped. As a geek, I've got a lot of things that beep, but none of mine do when I am at a movie. Screw public safety, I think property owners should be able to set up "no call zones." I don't mind the cell phones being able to get messages, but they shouldn't be able to ring, nor should you be able to talk on them at certain places-- especially at movies. Perhaps it IS important for someone to get in contact with you, but I think you could at least go into the lobby to actually talk to them. Until you can bitmask out the features you don't want in your venue (which unfortunately, probably could never be "trigger bomb") There will be a place for cell phone blockers.